User talk:Slakr/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

User:SineBot adds signature even when I sign

Hi Slark, earlier I wrote my first two sections in talk pages on the English Wikipedia, and I noticed that User:SineBot added the automatic signature even though I had signed. You can see this here, but maybe it will add the automatic signature to this post too so as you can have a closer proof. :) --Tanonero (msg) 18:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanonero (talk • contribs)

Nevermind, I figured it by myself. I had copied the signature from the Italian version and it was redirecting to Utente:Tanonero rather than User:Tanonero. --Tanonero (msg) 18:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi there! Can I still get the Manix Abrera article back? Ill cite the reference you provided. I was very poor in doing my research and cited another wiki instead. I mean no harm in creating this wiki. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajta0316 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I responded to your post

However,

"The Internet is the last bastion of true free speech. Wikipedia embodies free speech at its finest. I think it does a better job at filtering fact from fiction than real life ever could. Seriously, how often can you slap a tag on someone's nonsense? How often can they slap one on you back? How often are they actually verified? Even better, we don't have to worry as much about corporate interests, liberal/conservative bias, and/or campaign contributions. Everyone keeps everyone else in check-- without guns, bombs, white ghost costumes, or other attacks. I like to learn, and I wish more people did too." -slakr

Where am I deferent from you. I only brought fact to fiction. The world said "who is the other guy on the cover, it looks like IVERSON" , but it's me. I'm the only one who got blocked from playing in the league because I served my country. I am a victim of conservative bias. And, in trying to correct it I was told I was wrong. If you know about what Ed Obanon did so that former NBA players could be paid for use of likeness, imagine what I'm facing when I'm on the cover and DIDNT play in the NBA. That's my fight right now. I have to fight the system to be heard and I thought wiki was the place where truth gets posted and is able to stand. I'm not fully trying to use wiki as a weapon, however the more people who can FREELY ATTAIN the truth, will break down these barriers. Kaoszulu (talk) 07:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Also while there are several credited sources on the page, they all reference blog posts, magazine articles, but no actual people involved. Until I posted. Nick said I have to show a credible source. Slakr, who's more credible than the guy we know Is not doc or mike, and, if it was Allen we woulda just put his jersey on the cover. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaoszulu (talk • contribs) 07:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC) Kaoszulu (talk) 07:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure who to ask

Slakr, I'm not sure who to ask so I thought I would ask you as you have closed a number of edit warring notices. I posted one here [[1]]. I've seen a number of other edit war notices get closed but I've seen no review of mine one way or the other. Is there a way to know if the complaint is being reviewed? If there is a problem with the structure of the complaint can I know what it is? If this should be an ANI for disruptive editing instead of edit warring again is there a way to find out? Thanks Springee (talk) 10:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

DS alert American Politics,

Thanks for the alert, although I followed the Arb Comm proceedings and was aware of the findings, the reminder is welcome. Thanks again. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Please revisit

I noticed you closed Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Benjil_reported_by_User:Debresser_.28Result:_declined.29 as "declined". I think that result is invalid, as in not a valid option in view of the request. I explained myself there. Originally I changed the result myself to "closed without administrative action", which is a valid result in this case, but after a post on my talkpage from an editor I respect very much for many years already, I undid that, and now ask you to make this change. Debresser (talk) 00:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@Debresser: Thanks for the heads up. I've double checked the action, and you might be right. It could be argued that the close was wrong and what needed to happen was to actually block you for edit warring, even though you haven't violated the three revert rule, because you seem acutely aware of the policy against doing so yet proceeded nonetheless to make multiple reverts. In fact, you were so confident in your understanding of the policy that you'd go so far as to revert my close (which, I might add, is sort of ironic on an edit warring noticeboard), while the other editor was given no significant, direct, standard warning (e.g., {{uw-3rr}}) about the policy against edit warring and thus has benefit of the doubt. Is being blocked a more desirable choice for you, or would you rather take the warning and seek dispute resolution instead of continuing to edit war? We added that option to the {{AN3}} template, by the way, because it happens so frequently: Nominating editor blocked. The way I see it, of course, is that I'm hopefully right in my interpretation of the edit warring policy in that the spirit of it is to block neither of you in this instance, which is why I felt the most appropriate close (for now) was to decline the report. Hopefully you understand where I'm coming from now, even if you disagree with it. --slakr^\ talk / 20:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

You do whatever you see fit, but that closure was incorrect. And I already pointed out there the difference between an editor defending a consensus version without actually violating the 3RR rule and the editor who tries to push through his non-consensus opinion.

But if you are one of those admins who care more bureaucracy than actually helping the project, like many others I have had dealings with before you, or who simply have their own issues, or if perhaps you just happen to disagree with me on the big issues of what is important on Wikipedia, then I suppose blocking me sounds like just the right thing to do.

So do whatever you like, but that closure was wrong. Debresser (talk) 23:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

For a more in-depth review of the subject, and the role you take in this as opposed to the one you should be taking, please see the above mentioned post on my talkpage. Debresser (talk) 00:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@Debresser: I understand you're frustrated that I did not take the action you requested. You made a report that alleged that there was a clear violation of the edit warring policy and/or associated policies (including the three-revert rule) that would warrant an administrator's urgent attention. I, in my opinion, found insufficient wrongdoing from either side, covered by any policy, that would make me comfortable in making a block to prevent further wrongdoing (or justifying any other administrative action) at the time. While it's entirely possible I'm just a big, forgiving, stupid softie when it comes to determining whether or not to block someone, I'm also not the only one who regularly patrols AN3, and if the reverts continue unabated and/or there's a failure to engage in dispute resolution, it's likely someone else will rise to your (and/or the other guy's) expectations for strictness. And yes, it's entirely possible another admin would have had a different, harsher opinion in the first place, but that's simply not how reports are typically closed on AN3. We're volunteers, and we simply have a bunch of reports from a bunch of people to get through. --slakr^\ talk / 06:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I know, and I do appreciate the hard and ungrateful work some admins do. And I did have a look at your user contributions to check if you are a serious admin or just an amateur. :)

Still, I have a strong inbuilt sense of justice, in real life I am a student of law, and when I see a mistake, technically speaking, I already feel unhappy. When that mistake also ignores the bigger picture of what is going on in this case, I feel twice wronged.

By the way, did you see my talkpage post? Then you know where I am coming from. I am a long-time editor, an by now have not a bad feeling of what Wikipedia is about and the current trends here.

It is always a fine line dividing between trying to defend an article from tendentious edits, especially if they are sincere (not vandalism), and enforcing your own opinion. May be I got it wrong in this case. In any case, by the advice of EdJohnson on my talkpage, I suggested to the other editor to open an Rfc to see what present consensus is. I think that is the only valid course of action now, and any one-sided attempt to change the article would constitute disruptive editing. Debresser (talk) 07:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Your bot is slaking in it's checks.

It just signed me although, I'm a long time user and signed already. [2]—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 17:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@C678 and Cyberpower678: You signed as C678 despite being signed in as Cyberpower678 (btw, WP:SIGLINK requires a direct link, not a redirect). It doesn't look like the normal edit count checking is broken, though, so I'm guessing there was a transient error in the API on the edit count call, in which case it defaults to assuming you're a noob. You can either update your signature to reflect your actual username or use one of the other opt-out methods listed on its user page if you want to reduce the likelihood of it happening again. --slakr^\ talk / 01:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

In which case I think I will leave it be for the time being.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 01:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Question on bot approvals

Hi Slakr. I'd like your recommendation on how to best handle sending a series of tasks through the bot approval process. I'm currently working on reducing the backlog at WP:TFD/H. In many cases, the templates that are being merged have high transclusion counts and the process of the merge can be handled partially or completely with AWB. The tasks don't take very long to write the regex for and test on my end, so I've been churning them out fairly quickly. I've written two today, for instance.

I'm not quite sure how I should go about bot approvals for these. If I were to submit a BRFA for each task immediately as it were finished, it would probably bludgeon the process to death. I've been told of a past situation where a bot operator received general approval to handle these types of tasks at their discretion, but I have not been around long enough to develop a reputation to allow for such a carte blanche approval. The third option appears to be to sit on these tasks and wait for my existing BRFAs to go through before submitting additional ones, but that makes it very difficult to work through the backlog at any meaningful rate.

Do you have any suggestions on how best to proceed? I'm trying to balance accountability, the limited time of the BAG, and the need to work through this backlog, but I'm not seeing any way forward where one of those doesn't have to give. Is there a fourth option I'm missing? ~ Rob^Talk 05:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: I'd probably get a handful that are approved via the normal route, ensure they work smoothly, and then you have a track record (and good sample size) of demonstrating clue. At that point, you can probably aim for the blanket approval (because it's like, why waste BAG's time if at that point all we're used to doing is rubber stamping trivial variations on the same running theme). The main thing the whole BRFA process is for is sanity checking and keeping people calm. You're basically just saying, "Hey, does anyone have a problem with me making a bunch of these edits automatically? I promise I've done everything I can think of to not screw up and waste everyone's time." And that, realistically, is the main thing people care about: having to fix a fuckup or revert something they simply disagree with. None of the experienced bot developers want to have to explicitly write a bot to fix somebody else's logic holes, and non-coders don't want to feel powerless (or waste their volunteered time) staring down 10,000 mindless rollback clicks and/or sifting through page histories and running a bunch of undos. If you have people's confidence as far as that goes—that people won't be inconvenienced and that a clear and obvious net positive results—that's really what matters most and what you have to demonstrate you're capable of accomplishing (and being trusted to accomplish). --slakr^\ talk / 07:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Request for page move:

There are several mexican telenovela pages that have to be moved .I have tried to speak to Phillip J Fry who blanyantly refused to move them to their original titles.This is because they are not changed in English speaking countries.The only thing changed is the dubbed subtitles.The names remain the same.They are The Stray Cat,Wild at Heart (telenovela),The Color of Passion,The Neighbor (telenovela).Moreso some of the channels in the internationals often change the english translation to their liking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyanchoka (talk • contribs) 21:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

To learn, each title is according to the posters and every telenovelas was bent to the English. Nigeria give these telenovelas with subtitles, does not mean that the titles should change. On Youtube you can find many videos of these telenovelas folding into English. The user was blocked by wars of editions and between all this dispute add references where it mentions that "Wild at Heart" was dubbed into English.--Philip J Fry • (talk) 23:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The user Philip J Fry has been moving multiple pages without discussion until consensus is reached as I have explained the English titles often change.This has become difficult for the use to understand since he residents in a Spanish speaking country hence he does not experience the difficulty in using the English title.The English Title to my opinion is not supposed to be used in place of the original and the mover has not understood the impact of. this as I have explained it to him but it seems to have fallen on deaf ears and whenever he sends messages I barely comprehend them.Honestly I don't want a move war with a stubborn user.User:Nyanchokanyanchy 01:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films)#Foreign-language films. The language used in the title of the film is generally whatever was used in the film's marketing in the English-speaking world. For example, Au revoir les enfants, which came out under that name in anglophone countries although it is also the original French title. The fact that Au revoir les enfants was released in those countries with English subtitles does not influence the decision. EdJohnston (talk) 01:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The titles of the articles: The Stray Cat, Wild at Heart and The Color of Passion. They are already quite a few months so and they do not violate any policy, because you are telenovelas were dubbed into English and the poster, also Nyanchoka began to change posters and titles at all costs trying to impose their point of view, without reaching an agreed. And as I said before, that in Nigeria these telenovelas are issued with subtitles not influence to the titles of the articles to be moved. The user insists on request that the pages be moved, making this kind of destructive issues. Despite the fact that you asked that you please stop or at least read how to use the template, the user continues to ignore my message.--Philip J Fry • (talk) 02:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

@Nyanchoka: I understand that you're frustrated with the variability in the English names, and you want the titles, ideally, to be accurate and up-to-date. As EdJohnston (talk · contribs) mentioned, we do have a series of "naming conventions" for things like this, but there can be exceptions, as not every situation is clear (who knows, this might be one of them). The general rule of thumb, however, is that we use English, but above that, we use the name that those who speak English are most likely to know, because that's the language this encyclopedia is targeting and explaining concepts for—those who speak English. "China" is how most English speakers know the country described by the article at China, for example, but can you imagine how difficult it would be to find "China" if the title was in Mandarin? :P That said, a title can be, as Ed pointed out, in French, because English speakers actually know the movie by its French name more than by an English translation of the name. Similarly, you'd see "Schadenfreude," a German word, being left where it is, because that's the word most English speakers know it by. Otherwise, our solution involves inter-language links. You'll notice those on the left side of the page when you view an article, and those tend to actually properly reflect the correct, original name, in the original language (well, that is, if that language has an article and it's been linked here; if not, you could always take it upon yourself to create one).

Still, it's possible even the English version of the title is wrong or disused, so the best place to deal with disputed article titles (i.e., when one user disagrees with another user) is at requested moves (more specifically, the controversial moves section). Warring over the title is never the way to go, as it tends to be even more disruptive than normal edit warring, so I suggest you leave the titles where they are (even if it's not the ideal one) and instead file the requested-move. Actually, it can be even easier, because the person who closes the move will likely even carry out the moves for you, and if it's a lot of pages, it saves you a lot of time and repetition to just let someone else do the work for you. :P

Anyway, follow the directions at Requested Moves (which involve starting a discussion on one or more of the articles' talk pages). From there, you, Philip J Fry (talk · contribs), and even uninvolved editors will come by to help create consensus to determine which title most accurately aligns with our policies, guidelines (including naming conventions), and the manual of style. Keep in mind, there can be situations where no title is agreed upon by everyone, but the page still needs some title—even if it's not the ideal or most accurate one.

--slakr^\ talk / 07:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, keep in mind that you can still always create redirects if need be (and in situations where there's confusion about which name is most recognized by English speakers). --slakr^\ talk / 07:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion the current titles are well, as well help users who speak English find these pages. For example suppose that Slakr saw "La vecina", but do not know how is your Spanish title, and comes to deduce that if Spanish title would be "The Neighbor" (an example), so would a little more users to find articles on television series in Spanish. Other examples can be seen in the Wikipedia Serbian, that although these programs are in Spanish, alla translate their titles into the language that they speak. As you can see here. In any case if the user does not want this to be so, you can do what you mention Slakr. I don't have any problem in that, what happens is that formerly Nyanchoka did everything backwards, it began to move pages without reaching an agreed.--Philip J Fry • (talk) 07:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

@Philip J Fry: Personally, I couldn't care less. :P The main point of my post is that my talk page isn't the correct venue for discussing the merits of the page names; the article talk pages themselves are. If there's a running theme, a single requested move can help centralize the discussion to avoid a crapton of discussions over a crapton of pages, but regardless, those discussions need to happen somewhere other than here, otherwise the little box at the top of my screen will explode unnecessarily. :P --slakr^\ talk / 07:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you=

Thank you for that note of understanding. It is hard to know what to do about an editor who puts an enormous amount of time into Wikipedia, so that his hounding of me looks infrequent - to everyone but me. He comes to AFDs to vote delete where I have given extensive evidence for keeping, deleting citations from articles with false claims that the citations do not support the material. Who would read through all those long articles to see what he is doing. Who would ever have the patience to read through all of the accusations he has posted at ANI to sort out the avalanche of half-truths and untruths? The energy he puts into dogging my every step is remarkable. The slander of me is wearying. And there does appear to be a political motivation - I find Islamism noteworthy, he prefers to edit out material from reliable publications about Islamist violence, and to delete material and articles showing Islamist militants in a negative light. Most likely this reflects a leftist ideology interpreting Islamism as a reaction to Western imperialism and attacks on Muslim lands by Western countries. Since my editing is far above par, this is the only plausible explanation for the fact that he has expressed, multiple times, a desire to drive me off Wikipedia. Deletion of articles and material in support of this goal is not good editing. Moreover, there is an obsessive component to his attacks on me that makes him an uncongenial and destructive editor. The lack of good editing on mryiad articles on useful but uncontroversial topics shows, IMHO, the extent to which the notoriously battleground atmosphere and interminable wikilawyering make Wikipedia aversive, and drives away new editors. Mostly, however, I am hoping that if I refrain from responding and refrain form posting plong legal briefs at ANI, he will forget me and go away. Yesterday, when he aggressively, and for the second time, made dishonest assertions about news articles sourcing an article about an heroic priest running what is by all accounts an exemplary refugee camp in Iraqi Kurdistan - I lost it. I am sorry that I engaged him. It, and the support given by a handful of other editors, only has the effect of encouraging him and helps make Wikipedia a nasty place to work.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Current discussion on Drv

Hello Slakr: Your edits at WP:Forking Content are presently being mentioned on Drv for "Poetry in the 21st century" for this article in case changes might be needed at the WP:Forking Content page. Could you glance at it? MusicAngels (talk) 15:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Removal of verification failed tags on Douglas al-Bazi by E.M.Gregory

My failed verification tags were removed as "untruthful" by EM Gregory. I have listed below the statements sourced, the diffs where the tags were removed, links to the sources, and the extent of the source content related to the article content in the source that was tagged.

He was tortured and released nine days later. He suffered multiple injuries including two broken vertebrae from his spinal cord, and his face and knees were smashed using a hammer. sourced to Catholic Monitor, Doran, and Cantilero has its tags removed here by E.M.Gregory as "removing MSJapan's untruthful tags." The Catholic Monitor ref says, Douglas knows first-hand the effects of violence. He still has a bullet lodged in his leg and has back problems from being beaten with chains when he was kidnapped in 2006. The Doran ref says "Nearly a decade before in Baghdad, he was kidnapped by Shiite militias and tortured, losing several teeth in the process, which have since been replaced." The Cantilero ref states In 2006, Catholic priest Father Douglas Bazi was taken by Islamists who tortured him until a ransom was paid. The priest had to endure a terrible ordeal in the hands of his abductors who struck his back, broke one of his legs, shot him, and punched his teeth out. none of these sources supports the claim made in the article, and in fact, EMG's reply to "listen to the BBC interview", supports my point in the AfD was that BBC radio program was where it was sourced from in the first place, not the other three sources I tagged.

He was released after a ransom was paid by the church. has its tag removed for Asianews.it here. The source states, Fr Doglas Yousef Al Bazi, the Chaldean parish priest of St Elias in Baghdad, is safe and sound, at home once again. He was released last night after being kidnapped for nine days.. There's a further brief "no comment" from the bishop as well. No ransom is mentioned in this source as stated in the article.

In this diff EMG has now moved the $170,000 ransom statement up to be cited by the same above sources, but claims in the edit summary it's only sourced to Catholic Review. On top of that, nowhere in the ref is $170,000 mentioned.

This is why they were tagged, and there is no reason those tags should have been removed as "untruthful". MSJapan (talk) 16:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• It's right t, where I said it is. Here: [[3]] or , google: 170,000 ransom church bazi. The exact quote, from the Catholic Review is: "Father Doglas Al-Bazi, a Chaldean Catholic parish priest of St. Elias Church in Baghdad, was released Nov. 28 after being held for nine days, AsiaNews reported Nov. 29. Meanwhile, Iraqi Redemptorist Father Bashar Warda said church officials paid a ransom of $170,000 for the priests' release. It was unclear if the two were kidnapped by the same people.

- See more at: http://catholicreview.org/article/play/travel/kidnappers-release-two-chaldean-catholic-priests-in-iraq#sthash.ZlKwnawk.dpuf" . E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• No, it isn't correct. You've sourced the ransom amount to a source that does not appear in the article, and cited it in the article to a source in which the information does not appear. The raw URLs will illustrate that. The article citation is http://www.catholicreview.org/article/faith/parish-news/kidnappers-release-two-chaldean-catholic-priests-in-iraq. Note it appears in faith/parish-news. The ref you provided here (which yes, does have the information) is http://catholicreview.org/article/play/travel/kidnappers-release-two-chaldean-catholic-priests-in-iraq#sthash.ZlKwnawk.dpuf, which is from play/travel. They are not the same article. MSJapan (talk) 18:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

That is very strange. As far as I am aware, the $170,000. ransom paid by the Church has been there in The Catholic Review article right along. But, I suppose there could exist two links, one missing the final 2 paragraphs of the article. That kind of confusion does happen when articles go live, then undergo revision. I often google keywords or unique phrases when I happen on an article citing something that I cannot find in the source cited. After all, such things do happen (I mean, sources get dropped or scrambled), and I try to assume good faith.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for protecting Karan Singh Grover article and taking an action against the user. Jimmy Aneja (talk) 08:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Jimmy Aneja removed all information regarding dill mill gayye controversy of Karan leaving the show and then returning back, does that sound like fair removal? I think not, this user is hell bent on just making the page smaller for no reasonUser:Humsafar22 (talk) 17:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humsafar 22 (talk • contribs)

Full protection at Denali

Do you think full protection is really necessary at Denali? Because it's in the news, the article is getting a lot of attention. Yes, there was an edit war amongst two users, but there's also a lot of constructive editing happening and active, good faith discussion about other, non-contentious improvements to the article. It's a shame to cut that off while the article gets lots of attention; might a stern warning or a block to the two editors who are edit warring stem the damage without preventing other improvements, particularly since both editors have said they'll stop at WP:AN/3RR and are engaging in discussion? —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 17:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ashill: Yes. The dispute's between more than two users, as evidenced by edit history and, more clearly, the ongoing talk page discussions, and because it's now being politicized, it also falls under the American politics arbitration stuff. It's not being recorded as an arb-enforcement action yet (because it's simple edit warring), but that's probably going to be one of the next courses of action, possibly in addition to WP:1RR restrictions, if edit warring continues over the subject. Once topics have gotten the running theme of being ground-zero for the same set of behaviors, this sort of thing tends to happen, sadly. --slakr^\ talk / 23:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the full protection was wise, Slakr, and hope you will keep an eye on the article when the protection expires. I would hate to see a move war, as that would get lots of folks riled up. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

mark Unsigned

Hi. You're bot has marked my signature as unsigned. Why ist that the case? I have a custom signature. Is that violating some guidelines here? Or is that just a software bug? --Micha 14:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Micha L. Rieser (talk • contribs)

I thnik I found the reason. My user page wasn't corresponding with the user name. Maybe now its ok? Test: --Micha 14:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to subscribe to the edit filter mailing list

Hi, as a user in the edit filter manager user group we wanted to let you know about the new wikipedia-en-editfilters mailing list. As part of our recent efforts to improve the use of edit filters on the English Wikipedia it has been established as a venue for internal discussion by edit filter managers regarding private filters (those only viewable by administrators and edit filter managers) and also as a means by which non-admins can ask questions about hidden filters that wouldn't be appropriate to discuss on-wiki. As an edit filter manager we encourage you to subscribe; the more users we have in the mailing list the more useful it will be to the community. If you subscribe we will send a short email to you through Wikipedia to confirm your subscription, but let us know if you'd prefer another method of verification. I'd also like to take the opportunity to invite you to contribute to the proposed guideline for edit filter use at WP:Edit filter/Draft and the associated talk page. Thank you! Sam Walton (talk) and MusikAnimal ^talk 18:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Best known for IP

I see you've rangeblocked the Best known for IP's VTR Chile access (200.83.0.0/16) for 6 months due to chronic block evasion. I seem to recall a discussion in the past that /16 rangeblocks introduced too much collateral; I was looking at a /20 block this morning and decided that was just too much. The main reason I can think of sticking with /16 is that I don't think too many people in Santiago edit the English Wikipedia so collateral is minimal. What do you think? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:00, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I actually didn't know who it was, just that I stumbled upon a fairly clear case of harassment. I whoised the IP and later found that the range had previously been blocked several times before, plus a check of the range's recent contribs showed overwhelming disruption since January. There are older, historic edits years ago, but the ratio of good-to-bad for this year were extremely low, which led me to believe the benefit continued to outweigh the risk. Regardless, I left it anon-only, which leaves it open for existing editors to continue editing and ACC to create accounts for users with verified ISP emails, for example, which is covered in the block template. We can try sending abusemail to their ISP, but I'm assuming someone already tried that? --slakr^\ talk / 17:26, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, well I can do something similar with 201.220.240/20, account on, verified ISP email on. There's been IP hopping all over the place since about 25 August and its tied up numerous admins. This particular case will never create an account so that's one way out of it. I see 201.220.242.199 (talk · contribs) has two totally unrelated edits in May that seem obviously unrelated, so there is a little bit of collateral. I've never been blocked so I've no idea how easy it is to see the problem, work out it's nothing to do with you, and not drive anyone away. I don't think an abuse email to the ISP is going to do much, this isn't theft of resources or a financial burden on them, more of a simple domestic dispute; do they get involved in this sort of thing? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:00, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Aaronisafish

Why did you block Aaronisafish so quickly? I had just sent him a friendly message. It seems like he just didn't know that he should use the sandbox. I know he made 3 annoying edits in a row, but they happened so quickly that I'm not sure that he had a chance to read the warnings. Little Runs With Scissors (talk) 11:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

@Little Runs With Scissors: Because it wasn't just the edits. He repeatedly bypassed the edit filter's warnings on top of talk page warnings. I do appreciate your assuming good faith, though. =) --slakr^\ talk / 11:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I have the ability to tell that he bypassed the warnings. Just today I was blocked from making an edit! (wrongfully) Someone had (nearly) blanked a page, so I undid that, but then I realised that it wasn't an article but was their own talk page. When I clicked "undo" to undo my own edit, Wikipedia wouldn't let me because it thought that I was blanking a page (even though I was only undoing my own edit). Anyway, I don't know how to look up your history or anything, but it looks like you've been around longer than me, so maybe things were different when you got here, but to give you the perspective of a newcomer, wikipedia feels like a hostile place where everything you do is recorded for eternity and I hate to say that it makes me feel like I want to leave!  :( Little Runs With Scissors (talk) 11:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think I want to be here

I feel like I've ruined my wikipedia account today! I went a couple years without anyone noticing me: just being a fly on the wall making completely uncontroversial edits, and now not only did you welcome me, but then I tried delete that message (since I had already read it, so there is no reason for it to persist. I'm the kind of person who deletes emails once I've read them.), and now not only was my talk page not deleted, but to make things worse, someone has left another message on my talk page explaining to me why talk pages are not deleted, and in doing so, documented the fact that I wanted it deleted in the first place, which just makes it worse. User_talk:Little_Runs_With_Scissors

I was specifically trying not to correct vandalism today. I was just trying to revert test edits (ones that would have been more appropriate for the sandbox).

I'm going to log in long enough to see if you have any suggestions, but after that I think I'm abandoning wikipedia. I don't want to have conversations with people that can never be deleted. It bothers me, and I don't think that I'm the only one. Maybe you can suggest that wikipedia be changed so that if both parties of a conversation want it deleted, then it can be (I don't know how to suggest such things). If you do ever suggest that, you will probably link to this message, which is ironic because I wish this message could be deleted, although as I am typing, I know it never will be. This text that I am typing will live longer than I do.

My first experience with wikipedia was probably 10 years ago. I edited a page without logging in. My edits were not reverted, but someone starting discussing it with me on my IP's talk page. I don't know if wikipedia still works this way, but at the time, this caused everyone in my building to get the message (and to be able to see the page that I had edited). There was nothing embarrassing about the conversation or the page that I had been editing, but when I tried to get the talk page for my IP deleted, at first it was refused. When I asked the user why they had refused to delete it, they apologized and said that they had not read the talk page and had assumed I was trying to escape from some vandalism warnings. Seeing as that was not the case, the page was eventually deleted.

I just wish that these conversations were more ephemeral. Little Runs With Scissors (talk) 11:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

please check the user the red pen of doom

She has something against the page Karan Singh Grover she has removed loads of encyclopaedic information without any consensus, please since you are administrator you should have a look at things rather than assuming and being blind to some editors — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.23.217.93 (talk) 17:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I WANT SINEBOT!

File:00sinebotjpg.jpg

hug

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Asdiprizio (talk • contribs) 16:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC) --113.80.39.15 (talk) 17:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

My request for adminship

Slakr, hi. Thanks for this change [4]. Only if you look at what you did you reverted back to the edition that I placed the category Request for Adminship. And that is wrong. Because that article is about the tools and mechanics about requests, doesn't seem to have names of people. Well I couldn't find the correct page. So when I said "successful requests" I meant that the "request" was successful in that my page was launched, not successful in terms of the goal. No that as you say is premature. So which is the correct category to get my name listed with everyone else trying for adminship? This way my page just sits and nobody sees it. Mendezes Cousins (talk) 17:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Protection

Hey, could you protect PlayStation 4 system software like you did for Xbox 360 system software? It has the same IP-hopping reverts not engaging with the talk page. – czar 23:53, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

SineBot

Hi, Commons needs a signing bot. Could you either run your bot on Commons, or give a copy to one of the bot users? Thanks in advance, Yann (talk) 17:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Xbox One system software protection

Hi Slakr,

Is there any way that you can enforce some sort of protection like the one on the Xbox 360 system software article on the Xbox One system software article, as we're getting a number of disruptive edits? Thanks. Wagnerp16 (talk) 07:29, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

BYU blocked as a proxy

Hi Slakr,

128.187.97.20 (Actually, it's 128.187.97.18-27) is currently blocked as a proxy by Procsee Bot. We've got some students at BYU hoping to register accounts for their class this fall and I'm wondering if you'd be willing to change the block setting to allow for account creation. I don't actually think BYU is operating an open proxy (there's an older block request which suggests it may be a local proxy for other BYU activity), though I don't have the means or know-how to verify this personally. Let me know if there's any info I can run down to help. Thanks. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@Adam (Wiki Ed):  Done; they appear to have firewalled them correctly now. --slakr^\ talk / 22:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 23:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Unblock request

Hello Slakr. I have just picked up your message relating to "Blocking". I also received similar notices re: some edits I had tried to make elsewhere. These were all just concurrent rather than a concerted attempt at spam. I have since been directed to the COI pages and understand why I was blocked - and apologise. I am very new to "Wiki" and had not seen the possibility of conflict. I was, after all, attempting to add the web site for the Church, on it's village or own page,which is who the ggmbenefice represents. We are the new web site for the very subject of that page. Looking more closely at the reams of material on editing, it seems that "external links" may be the course I should have run. However I am still unsure and do not wish to have the possibility of permanent blocking created by ignorance. Your advice would be gratefully received and I shall not attempt any further edits until I am sure that we comply with accepted practices. I hope to hear form you. Thanks. Ggmbenefice (talk) 19:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC).

@Ggmbenefice: {{unblock}} templates should be used on your own talk page (i.e., the account that is blocked). That said, there's no need to; the block expired over 2 days ago. Just don't keep adding the links and be sure to follow our various policies and guidelines and you'll be fine. Cheers. --slakr^\ talk / 20:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Bot help

(Whenever you are free...) please guide me how to program a bot.
14.139.242.195 (talk) 12:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

SPI/Blocking

Hi Slakr! I saw this where you blocked an IP for being a sockpuppet. The thing is, all of these IPs are that same person (and there's even more still I just can't be bothered to keep updating it). Cebr1979 (talk) 07:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Pebble101

Hi - thanks for the block, but he admits to editing logged out and most of his edits come from a 117 range, see[5] [6] [7]. Besides his poor language and original research, adding material to articles where the sources don't discuss the subject, he also is copying sentences from copyright sources. It would take far too long to check them all. I don't think we can block the range, so probably semi-protection is in order - could you do it? I'm not sure if I'm too involved or not. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 09:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I have given proper sources to each topic, unlike you who keeps undoing given sources. I'll list each sources that you seem to have problem with.

• Source regarding Y-DNA in South Asia - http://www.pnas.org/content/103/4/843.full.pdf

• Source regarding Mtdna in South Asia - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC516768/?tool=pmcentrez

• Source regarding F* Y-DNA you just removed and claimed it was not mentioned at all - See under "Indigenous and Exogenous HGs Represented in India" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1380230/

• Source regarding Dravidian migrations and other possible scenario - Quintana Murci et al study - https://www.familytreedna.com/pdf/Quintana-Murci-Iran.pdf and Derenko et al 2013 study also mentions it http://journals.plos.org/plosone/articleid=10.1371/journal.pone.0080673. I have fuller study in current version, along with Quintana Murci et al and Derenko et al study.

• Source regarding hypotisies Elamo-Dravidians - Were all mentioned in Quintana Murci et al study, Derenko et al study and fuller study.

Extended content

Genetics Main article: Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia Haplogroup F and it's descendant haplogroups. According to the phylogeographic distribution of haplotypes observed among South Asian populations defined by social and linguistic criteria, the possibility arose of Y-DNA haplogroup F and mtDNA Haplogroup M might have originated in South Asia. The presence of several haplogroup F, Haplogroup M and K that are largely restricted to the Indian subcontinent is consistent with the scenario that a coastal of early human migration out of Africa carried ancestral Eurasian lineages first to the coast of the Indian subcontinent, or that some of them originated there. Studies based on mtDNA variation have reported genetic unity across various Indian sub–populations. The early Dravidian speakers have a epipaleolithic heritage with origins in South Asian. Based on both archaeobotanical material evidence and colloquial agricultural terms, independent centers of agriculture domestication took place within Indian-Subcontient. Subsequently, the Indo-Aryan migration into subcontinent from Sintashta culture about 4,000 ybp. and the Tibeto-Burmans and Austroasiatics via the Himalayan and north-eastern borders of the subcontinent around 4,200 ybp. The most frequent mtDNA haplogroups in the Indian subcontinent are M, R and U. All major Y chromosome DNA haplogroups in the subcontinent are Haplogroup F's descendant haplogroups R (mostly R2a, R2 and R1a1), L, H and J (mostly J2). Haplogroup F itself is found mostly in South Asia.other notable haplogroups include O3 among Tibeto-Burman speakers, O2a among Austroasiatic speakers, G, Haplogroup P and T. Arguing for the longer term "rival Y-Chromosome model", It is highly suggestive that India is the origin of the Eurasian mtDNA haplogroups which he calls the "Eurasian Eves". According to Oppenheimer it is highly probable that nearly all human maternal lineages in Central Asia, the Middle East and Europe descended from only four mtDNA lines that originated in South Asia 50,000-100,000 years ago. References

Every source given above is related to the topic. Pebble101 (talk) 12:54, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Does this mean every source mentions the article's subject in the summary/discussion section? Doug Weller (talk) 15:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

First sentence - problem there was copyright - "According to the phylogeographic distribution of haplotypes observed among South Asian populations defined by social and linguistic criteria, the possibility arose of Y-DNA haplogroup F and mtDNA Haplogroup M might have originated in South Asia." is copyvio from the source with a possible pov change: "On the basis of the combined phylogeographic distributions of haplotypes observed among populations defined by social and linguistic criteria, candidate HGs that most plausibly arose in situ within the boundaries of present-day India include C5-M356, F*-M89, H-M69*"[8]

Second sentence: "The presence of several haplogroup F, Haplogroup M and K that are largely restricted to the Indian subcontinent is consistent with the scenario that a coastal of early human migration out of Africa carried ancestral Eurasian lineages first to the coast of the Indian subcontinent, or that some of them originated there" cf with "The presence of several subclusters of F and K (H, L, R2, and F*) that are largely restricted to the Indian subcontinent is consistent with the scenario that the coastal (southern route) migration(s) from Africa carried the ancestral Eurasian lineages first to the coast of Indian subcontinent (or that some of them originated there)."[9]

Another: "Based on both archaeobotanical material evidence and colloquial agricultural terms, independent centers of agriculture domestication took place within Indian-Subcontient(sic) cf with "Fuller finds that “evidence based on both archaeo-botanical material and colloquial agricultural terms more parsimoniously postulates that early Dravidian had an epipaleolithic pre-agricultural heritage” and that it “originated near a South Asian core region”" which is either from [10] or Fuller's original work.

"the most frequent mtDNA haplogroups in the Indian subcontinent are M, R and U" - besides not being clearly relevant to anything, it was originally sourced from [11] and the new source[12] doesn't clearly state that, it appears to be cherry-picked/original research.

"All major Y chromosome DNA haplogroups in the subcontinent are Haplogroup F's descendant haplogroups R (mostly R2a, R2 and R1a1), L, H and J (mostly J2)." is from this 205 file[13] and has the same problem, it doesn't clearly state that.

"notable haplogroups include O3 among Tibeto-Burman speakers, O2a among Austroasiatic speakers, G, Haplogroup P and T." but the source says nothing about notable haplogroups.

"Arguing for the longer term "rival Y-Chromosome model",[1] It is highly suggestive that India is the origin of the Eurasian mtDNA haplogroups which he calls the "Eurasian Eves". According to Oppenheimer it is highly probable that nearly all human maternal lineages in Central Asia, the Middle East and Europe descended from only four mtDNA lines that originated in South Asia 50,000-100,000 years ago". It isn't clear why you are using Sengupta here, and the quote ""rival Y-Chromosome model" is not in that source. As my edit summary said, Wikipedia shouldn't be telling readers what is "highly suggestive". Then out of nowhere comes a 'he', then someone with the surname Oppenheimer who isn't identified. And as I've said, I don't think Oppenheimer is really a reliable source for this - I guess also WP:UNDUE would come in, as well as what some might read as Sengupta et al's support for this.

Sorry Slakr if this is intrusive. Doug Weller (talk) 14:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I've gone ahead and restricted the user to WP:1RR within the I/P/A area for the next 3 months. It looks like someone else has blocked them for the block evasion and continued edit warring. Cheers. =) --slakr^\ talk / 01:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Sublingual administration

Hi, I noticed your bot SineBot added a signature to the page Talk:Sublingual administration the 31° of may, and this seems to have whited out the whole page, although in editing it the text is all still there. All the best, --Amendola90 (talk) 15:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

SineBot problem

Hello, SineBot signed two messages I already signed using ~~~~: [14] and [15]. Maybe it is because my signature has unusual characters? Regards, Ѕÿϰדα×₮ɘɼɾ๏ʁ ^{You talkin' to me?} 12:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Having Sinebot built into Mediawiki, or something like that

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T117157

At the bug templated to your right, we have asked the mediawiki developers to implement a village pump consensus to have all posts automatically signed whenever the editor clicks a "sign this post" checkbox. The developers are concerned about the complexity of this task, but these complexities are ones that you have already effectively solved with Sinebot. I was hoping you could chime in at that bug on phabricator so you could maybe provide code, or help out in other ways. Thanks, Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Opt out of sinebot

Hi Slakr, is there a way to prevent sinebot from automatically signing messages on my own talkpage? It's pretty annoying since it makes revert of vandalism harder. --Vituzzu (talk) 20:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Vituzzu:Please read this: User:SineBot#Opting out. This gives you instructions on opting out yourself, an individual page, or an individual edit. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh I was *so* silly, I didn't think of {{bots}}! --Vituzzu (talk) 14:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Got'cha ;-)

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Nice race to the finish with the page protection on Guy Fieri. I'm sorry that you finished second ;-) HA. I'm just messing with you. But seriously, thanks for jumping on that request so quickly. I'm curious as to what the deal is with the sudden edits to that article... ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Immediately Back to Reverting

Immediately after sanctioning Springee with a 1RR, he's taken back to reverting the Southern Strategy article [16]. Now, I know he's allowed 1 revert a day, but this is more than just a revert, it's carrying on the edit war that was just addressed on the noticeboard. He literally just reverted the last edit I made before he filed an edit war complaint. The information he's put back into the article is non-verifiable. I asked him to supply a quote for it on the talk page and have pointed out that the word "non-factor" doesn't appear anywhere in the source, yet he still insists on including this information in the article and hasn't supplied a quote to substantiate the information in question. I am asking for assistance on how to approach this issue and your help would be greatly appreciated. I can provide any diffs for the statements above if it's necessary.Scoobydunk (talk) 19:33, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I will reply to this comment on the article talk page. See the reply here[17] Springee (talk) 20:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

@Scoobydunk: If it's just one revert (which they're allowed currently), I, personally, am not concerned unless a longer-term pattern of clear disruption develops (especially since action was literally just taken). If that happens, consider an arbitration enforcement request or another edit warring report. My activity level varies, so those would be the most reliable ways to get someone to look into future issues. --slakr^\ talk / 01:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Question regarding AfD Sar Jalal close

The last comment in that discussion was mine. I had just discovered what I thought was critical information to inform the decision concerning a possible merge with Wah Cantonment, because I think they are the same place. Why close the AfD when such new and compelling information had just come to light? If it's true, the solution would be easy - merge. We could have a consensus right then instead of having to go through the process again. I would just like to know your reasoning. I don't mean to argue, but I would like to know if there is something I missed, like whether there is a better forum for this sort of thing? Your close just said there was no consensus, with no further comments. Is there anything else I should know? Thanks - Dcs002 (talk) 00:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

@Dcs002: Typically speaking, AfDs run 7 days and are relisted a usual maximum of twice. This one was overdue for closure and on its 2nd relist, so, like most times I get involved in AfD closures, I had to make a choice, and I didn't feel there was clear consensus in any one direction, so I erred on the side of caution. Furthermore, merges don't require an AfD to take place, it's just incidental that merges can be the result of the consensus-building process that happens to be at the AfD venue. Merges can be done on their own, and a "no consensus" close still allows for that to happen. That said, if you feel I made a mistake, you're always welcome to open a deletion review. --slakr^\ talk / 01:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. I did not know that merges were incidental to AfD's - I thought that was a more formal part of AfD's. (I haven't participated in a lot of AfD discussions, so I'm still learning.) I am not the right person to do a merge because, as I said in that discussion, I need someone who knows more about the topic than I do to verify the information. I will take this to the Wah Cantonment talk page for that. Thanks again. Dcs002 (talk) 01:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Nature Hills Nursery

Hello,

I was working on improving the article for Nature Hills Nursery, and the page was deleted. I was wondering if you could help me improve it, so it meets Wikipedia standards? Here is the old URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_Hills_Nursery

Nature Hills was just highlighted by Silicon Prairie News in this article, which I think has some great information: http://siliconprairienews.com/2015/11/nature-hills-brings-e-commerce-2-0-to-the-gardening-industy/

I was also trying to add a few images to the article as well, but couldn't get that to work.

Are you able to help me with this? I wasn't able to find where the old information was either.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisdlink (talk • contribs) 19:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

@Chrisdlink: I, personally, don't typically help with creating articles, as I'm largely doing other administrative tasks. The closest we have for that is Articles for Creation, where you can submit articles for review (and someone will give feedback) without fear of deletion. I'd suggest, apart from that, Wikipedia:New contributors' help page, the tutorial, FAQ, and The Wikipedia Adventure. --slakr^\ talk / 19:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Larry Geller

I "DELETED" my article "Larry Geller". It showed it was deleted. Then, I "created" and it said to go to User draft instead of draft so I did. Then a big STOP button and said there was already a page called Larry Geller (which I deleted). This gets more complicated every single minute. I've never run across a more complicated process in my life.

I deleted the article to start over with a very SHORT article. Now, I'm being stopped even doing this? What is with this site?

Also, I signed my name with Chris Coffey 19:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC) AFTER and this is what they said I should do but I still got a comment from you or someone saying I should do this - I DID! What is going on???

Chris Coffey Chris Coffey 19:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keshakoko1 (talk • contribs)

@Keshakoko1: So a few things:

1. The easiest — the bot message was about your signature. It needs a link back to your user page. If you're signing by typing "~~~~", then you've tampered with your signature settings. Follow the instructions in FAQ #5 at the top of this talk page ("I'm signing with four tildes but it's still saying I didn't!") to fix it.
2. The article — There are three things you might be talking about:
   1. Larry Geller — this is the article space one. It was deleted as a copyright violation. It can't be restored without verifying you as the copyright holder and you donating the copyrighted text.
   2. User:Keshakoko1/sandbox/Larry Geller — this is the user draft; it still exists.
   3. Draft:Larry Geller — this is the main draft space draft that you requested to be deleted. It can be undeleted by request, too.
3. If you're having difficulty editing or understanding some of this stuff, please see Wikipedia:New contributors' help page for some resources.

--slakr^\ talk / 19:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

a question for you, re: "stale"

In case you missed it, I posted a question to you (or anyone else who sees fit to answer it) here. NCdave (talk) 01:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Springee - Scoobydunk sanctions

I have a comment/question about the ruling here [18] that applies to me. First, I want to make sure I'm clear on what counts as a revert. I understand that two back to back edits are just 1. If I'm changing relatively static parts of the article (say material that has been unchanged for say 2 weeks or 1 month) does that count as a revert or just a new edit? I assume adding new material does not count as a revert? If I change a paragraph in say section 1, another edit makes a change, then I change material in section 2, does that count as a 1RR violation?

I ask all of this because I fear that Scoobydunk will try to take advantage of the 1RR sanction to "win" edit wars and to "punish" me for sins he feels I have committed. I noted earlier today on the AIEW link (above) Scoobydunk recently attempted to bring ANI sanctions against me. The complaint was seen as an attempt to carry an edit dispute to the ANI scope and came to nothing. I think his claim that he was unfamiliar with the rules is questionable. However, if the rules also require an official warning then I understand. May I close by asking what might be considered targeted edit warring against me by Scoobydunk under the current situation where he is not under 1RR rules. Thanks and sorry for the trouble Springee (talk) 13:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

@Springee: The details of what reverts are is covered on the policy page pertaining to edit warring and Help:Reverting. Make no mistake, though, Scoobydunk and other editors will likely also be sanctioned if they edit war (and/or otherwise edit disruptively); it's just you had already received an {{Alert}} in the topic area while Scoobydunk had not until now. In response to the second issue, we also have a guideline pertaining to gaming the system, as this has frequently been an issue that arises. Plus, we're fairly strict about battleground-like behavior when it comes to people worrying about "winning" with regard to content disputes. Edit warring is just one of the most obvious incarnations of that issue, but it's taken on many forms, and, in the worst cases of it, the community (that always has interests outside the topic area) simply declines to allow it to continue happening (hence the reason for things like discretionary sanctions). --slakr^\ talk / 00:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

slakr, I believe my concerns regarding Scoobydunk using my 1RR restriction to simply block edits to the Southern Strategy article and to continue the battleground behavior are coming true so I'm writing to ask for your guidance.

The first edit I made to the article after the 3RR ANI was to restore material [19] which I had originally added and which had been removed by Scoobydunk during war. Scoobydunk immediately removed part of the restoration [20]. This removal was done without talk page comment.

I started a talk section in order to come to an agreement on edits to a the leading paragraph of a section of the article (final changes here [21]). I was unhappy with the changes he had made to material I originally added to the article. This was a good faith effort to find an agreed passage that addressed our respective concerns in hopes that we could roll out a single change to the article that we would both agree on. Scoobydunk's interactions were incivil and obstructionist[22]. No suggestions to address my concerns were offered while my proposed changes were met with demands for irrefutable quotes from sources. The talk page interaction is a great example of the hostile replies from Scoobydunk that I (and others) have been subject to when trying to move things to the talk page rather than going through rounds of edit-revert-repeat.

Yesterday I added new, related material.[23]. 5 hours later Scoobydunk reverted those edits with minimal justification (no talk page comments) [24]. I feel today's revert justification is questionable at best and given the recent incivility should have been posted to the talk page rather than just reverted. This is an attempt to WP:OWN the article via his "freedom to revert" my changes. Given the continued incivility and his use of my 1RR to own the article content I'm asking you for advice. Thank you. Springee (talk) 19:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I see a lot of personal attacks and failure to assume good faith in this comment. Also, the only person who's repeatedly mentioned battleground behavior is Springee and he's also the only editor who's characterized our disputes in outcomes of "winning" which is a key indicator of WP:battleground behavior itself. I'd also like to note, that once Springee was sanctioned with a 1RR, we almost immediately came to a compromise with the disputed material that Springee was "unhappy" about. He wanted to put unverified claims of Lassiter being the "originator" of the suburban strategy, and after failing to find a source that characterized him as the "originator" and in light of sources that discussed the suburban strategy over a decade before Lassiter published his material on the matter, we settled on calling him a "leading" proponent. So i don't understand what incivility ensued, except for the numerous personal attacks I've had to endure. Also, claims of attempting to WP:OWN the article are absurd, especially since other editors have contributed/edited the article recently and their work hasn't been reverted. I also think it's disingenuous for Springee to complain about not taking to the talk page when he's expressed numerous times his unwillingness to discuss things on the talk page [25][26]. My edit summary clearly explained that the removed content was because it violated WP:COATRACK and if Springee wants to understand it more clearly, he's welcome to inquire about it on the talk page.

Since the warnings and sanctions have been issued, I've had 2 reverts of material [27][28] in the article while Springee has had 3 reverts [29][30][31]. So if anyone's concerns are coming "true" they are the ones I expressed when Springee immediately started reverting material again after being issued a 1RR sanction. So at what point does it become an issue of edit warring again? I think this is necessary information so I know when it's appropriate to pursue concerns regarding Springee's editing. I mean, 3 reverts while on a 1RR sanction, yet he's complaining about 2 reverts I've made while still having the same liberties as any other editor. Scoobydunk (talk) 01:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Slakr, I do not agree with Scoobydunk's description of events however, I do not wish to flood your talk page. I would be happy to provide information that refutes his claims but only if you ask. Thanks Springee (talk) 01:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The pattern of blocking my edits via taking advantage of my 1RR status is continuing.[32] Again a questionable claim of coatrack and a claim of BRD demands that I convince him before changes can be allowed to stay. Springee (talk) 12:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I've continued to take the same consensus building steps that are expected of all editors. What's an even bigger problem is that Springee seems to consider reverting as viable means of pushing content into articles, which is not what WP is about. I'm not taking advantage of anything, I'm simply following the expected behaviors from WP's general guidelines and BRD guidelines. The fact that Springee is on a 1RR sanction is irrelevant to the consensus building aspects of Wikipedia. However, for him to say that his 1RR sanction impedes his ability to edit, reveals more about the intent of using reverts to push content into articles, rather than engaging in talk page discussion and achieving consensus. We've already done it once since his 1RR sanction, I don't know why this is suddenly a problem. Also, I didn't say anything about Springee having to convince me of anything. He's welcome to go through dispute resolution, since he's already made it clear he doesn't desire building consensus through the talk page.Scoobydunk (talk) 12:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• Again I disagree with Scoobydunk's claims and can provide evidence to that end upon request. I do not wish to flood your talk page, my request for guidance stands. Springee (talk) 13:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• Scoobydunk again used the undo function to reverse changes I made to the article. I made changes to three subtopics of the article. He is disputing one yet undid all the changes vs just undid the changes he disagrees with. My changes are here [33]. His reversion is here [34]. At the time I uploaded my changes I also addressed their justifications on the talk page here [35]. Springee (talk) 14:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

  @Springee and Scoobydunk: — I've protected the page. Please seek dispute resolution (e.g., via requesting a neutral third opinion and/or opening an RFC). --slakr^\ talk / 18:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I've already opened up a DRN posting on the NPOV noticeboards before your page protection.Scoobydunk (talk) 19:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Pie

Pie..Pie is always the answer. Unless Bacon, or of course, CHEESE. XD You cool dude! Bye! ^-^ 4ChanX (talk) 22:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Just having some fun.

Derp.. Derpity Derp Derp... I am derpier than you! LOL Hi. I just wanted to say "Hi." and.. of course, DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Haha, sorry if it was too long. Anyway, bye!

P.S. DERP (:P) 4ChanX (talk) 22:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Derpier than me?! Clearly you haven't seen me when I'm trying to do math in the early morning. :P --slakr^\ talk / 04:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Greetings

Hello Slakr. I hope you don't mind a bit of humor every now and then. I see you are from Dallas. My daughter goes to school in Dallas so I have a little experience with its hellish summer heat, but in general I think it's a nice enough place, especially the food and the football. Jehochman ^Talk 12:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

The food's pretty good, though to be honest, I could go for some hills or something. Mountains, maybe? A random boulder? I dunno. I know asking for a beach might be a bit much, but the scenery is starting to get boring. :P --slakr^\ talk / 04:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

If you get west of the DFW airport there are hills. For a real thrill take a road trip to Albuquerque. Jehochman ^Talk 04:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

discretionary sanctions

He Slakr, I am not familiar with much of the discretionary sanctions (as I avoid editing them mostly because of the chilling effect of all the notes on the talk page ;-), but saw one appearing on Trans-Pacific Partnership. There is arguably some discussions (and also some edit warring) going on, but I didn't see any reason for discretionary sanctions. The link relates to US politics (and related people), but this agreement is one of many agreements to which the US is a negotiator (e.g. ACTA). Are you sure this is in the scope? Or has there been some kind of discussion regarding adding this? L.tak (talk) 14:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

@L.tak: — there aren't any active sanctions on the page; it's more as a heads up for the talk page. Should any actual restrictions be enacted, there will almost certainly be an edit notice added by the admin who places them (or, at the very least, some sort of notice posted to the talk page). --slakr^\ talk / 17:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

O, ok, so this is a kind of-pre-stadium. Still I wonder what the scope is of these -potential- discretionary sanctions regarding american politics. I couldn't find any decision on the scope, but there is lots of text in the link to the arbcom decision. Is there any way to get this a bit clearer, or a system to review whether the placement of the template on TPP was within its scope? L.tak (talk) 19:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@L.tak: It's semi-broad. The idea is that there's a lot of WP:SPA/meat/disruptive editing, particularly when it comes to partisan issues, that disrupts articles (which led to an arbcom case, much like other topics with similar issues). For example, Denali is mostly not political. It's a mountain. But, as of a couple of months ago, edit wars broke out because it was being politicised due to a recent name change. Particularly in cases like these, discretionary sanctions are aimed to help keep articles functional so that the rest of its content can continue to be edited. An admin can, instead of protecting the page, enact, say WP:1RR "on any edit related to the subject's current and/or former name" to push people to come to consensus instead of edit warring. --slakr^\ talk / 05:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Unblock requests on hold

On 6 November you placed an unblock request on hold at User talk:Christopher.akiki. I suggest that after that much time the matter should probably be settled one way or the other. The blocking admin asked the blocked editor for further information, which has not been provided. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I now see you placed another unblock request on hold on the same day, at User talk:Dsdeepak33. Different circumstances, but again I suggest it should now be closed one way or the other. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: Thanks for the reminder! :D The first one was purely procedural (and awaiting input from the user), so I declined it since nothing else has happened. The latter has now been unblocked. --slakr^\ talk / 04:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

SineBot problem

I take this out of your archive, because the problem hasn't been solved.

Hello, SineBot signed two messages I already signed using ~~~~: [36] and [37]. Maybe it is because my signature has unusual characters? Regards, Ѕÿϰדα×₮ɘɼɾ๏ʁ You talkin' to me? 12:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Your bot still signs some of my messages already signed, and now, it starts to put messages on my talk page, saying I should sign with four tildes, but I always sign my messages like this...

Ѕÿϰדα×₮ɘɼɾ๏ʁ ^{You talkin' to me?} 09:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@SyntaxTerror: It's because it's an interwiki link. (you've pointed directly to your userpage on fr.* --slakr^\ talk / 04:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I removed this redirect, it should be good by now. Regards, Ѕÿϰדα×₮ɘɼɾ๏ʁ ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SyntaxTerror (talk • contribs)

Check your bot talk page. 2 creepy thing found

Extended content
I seek revenge Courcelles betrayed me You'll never sign me! Muhahaha! --The anonymous commentator!

who is?. -- Chazpelo (talk)

Dunno. I've removed the most ominous one. --slakr^\ talk / 01:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC)