User talk:Mr. Stradivarius/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Hello, I was going to move this page to Jalpari (2012 film) and found out you already moved from Jalpari Film. As the cited sources have same text and unnecessary external links I have merged to Jalpari (film) though nothing to merge actually. I hope you dont mind :-). And let me know if you think it should be moved to Jalpari (2012 film), I will make a move request. Thank you! -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 15:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. I think it's fine where it is for the moment, but it would look neater as (2012 film) if/when someone creates Jalpari (1952 film). Thanks for doing the merge, by the way - it's a good job you caught it, as you created your article just after I had searched for other articles with the name "Jalpari". You might also be interested in the move proposal I made at Talk:Jalpari, as I think that Jalpari should be a disambiguation page rather than housing the album article. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Mr. Stradivarius

You said if I ever had a question, I can ask you. Well, being a brand-new Wikipedian, I think I badly need the advice of a Wikipedia veteran.

I was looking for an article to improve through the outlet which your welcome message led me to, and I ran into Microsoft Security Essentials article. This article is a good article and seem to have recently gone through a peer review and thorough copyediting. Now, my question is: What are the chances of this article becoming a Wikipedia:Featured Article?

I know it is probably a tough question to ask but any help would be greatly appreciated.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 12:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is a bit of a tough question, seeing as I've never written one! I have a fair few articles under my belt, but none of them are Good or Featured yet. Never fear, though, as I think I know where to ask. First you should probably read the featured article criteria, including all the links at the bottom of the page there. Then I would recommend taking a peek at the current featured article candidates and making a note of the various arcana being talked about there. After that I would recommend leaving a note with User:FleetCommand, the major contributor to the Security Essentials article, for their advice on the situation. It says that they are retired, but they edited 5 days ago and there's a good chance they might make an exception to retirement for someone offering to take one of their favourite articles to Featured Article status. Finally, I would get in touch with the main peer reviewer of the article, User:The Rambling Man, for their advice. They are an administrator and a bureaucrat though, so they might be busy. And if you are still stuck after that, you should post on the featured article candidate talk page, and someone there might take you under their wing. Sorry I couldn't answer this more directly, but I hope this is useful. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

You may want to have a look at my comment here, I think it is clearly a hoax. Cheers, --kelapstick^(bainuu) 12:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, and I would have tagged it as such if I had been paying more attention to the age - I had been searching for sources, which of course drew a blank. I think it's especially clear that it's a hoax given the timing and character of the edit to the main team article. Thanks for letting me know! — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:20, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem, I happened to be looking at it at the time of your tagging, and am lucky I was able to do such complex math at this hour :) --kelapstick^(bainuu) 12:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. Please see Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Nominations/Mr. Stradivarius. Best of luck :-). Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 09:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. It looked like a WP:BLP to me. A:-)Brunuś (talk) 11:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

That's ok, but I really strongly urge you to be more careful with looking at the articles before you tag them for speedy deletion, what with you being blocked before for the same problem. I know that it has been linked from previous discussions, but did you ever read the essay Why I Hate Speedy Deleters? It's very good advice to bear in mind if you never got round to reading it before. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 11:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm communicating via User talk only because I could not for the life of me work out how to make a direct comment to the discussion. I've previously edited content pages directly, but the protocols seem to have become increasingly complex - is discussion participation limited to "editing" HTML directly on the page, or is it "talking"? There is a risk that contributors will be excluded because the discussion process is impenetrable.

My point on the N8VEM page is that the issues are editorial, not policy. I have participated in the informal community of N8VEM very slightly, but enough to recognise that it is a significant activity that ought to be noted in Wikipedia.

The article as written apparently has problems with the "notability" guideline, because it is written by active N8VEM proponents. The community of engineers and hobbyists who populate N8VEM are not editorial types who would normally follow the subtleties of Wikipedia policy. This raises the paradox that the Notability guideline makes it difficult for anything to be recognised from a PRIMARY source. It is as if something is only real when it has been written about by others. I am a career editor and understand the policy issues for Wikipedia, but have sympathy for the practical engineers who do not normally think in those terms.

In substance, the N8VEM community project adds significant life to several areas that are already covered in Wikipedia historical articles. Two of these are "Homebrew Computing" and "S100 Computer Bus". Both these articles are out of date to the extent that they do not refer to the current work that continues into the present day, including the N8VEM project. If the N8VEM article is retained in an appropriately modified form, I would propose editing the Homebrew Computing, S100 Bus, and perhaps other existing articles to make the appropriate cross-references.

To my certain knowledge, N8VEM is not a commercial project in any form. It is a community collaborative activity with all uncompensated voluntary labour, and the end products are both free software and open-source printed circuit boards which are produced in batches as a co-operative venture on a purely cost-recovery basis.

Apologies for this mode of comment. If offends me as an experienced online worker that I can't find the correct method but when seeking instructions get lost in a fractal elaboration of policy documents... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rthwait (talk • contribs) 01:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello Rthwait, and thanks for your comment. I know what you mean about the system being hard to get used to - I was also pretty tech-literate when I first started Wikipedia, and I also had no idea what was going on at first. I think one of the things you said above was very perceptive, though - "It is as if something is only real when it has been written about by others". From Wikipedia's perspective, this is pretty much exactly right. For the purpose of deciding whether something can have an article or not, things are indeed only deemed worthy if they have been written about by others. If there aren't any more sources abbout N8VEM that are both reliable and independent of the N8VEM project, then I'm afraid we can't have an article on it. Something we might be able to look into is a merge with another article, however. You mention "Homebrew Computing" and "S100 Computer Bus" as articles that are related to N8VEM, but neither of these are the actual titles of any Wikipedia articles. Are there any existing articles that you feel would be a good to mention N8VEM in? If you find a good one I'll mention it at the deletion discussion. There's nothing special about editing over there, by the way - just click the edit link at the top of the page and say what you want to say. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Useredit8741 (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC) Useredit8741

You're welcome! — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 21:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

This is an automated message. Your editor review is scheduled to be closed on 3 June 2012 because it will have been open for more than 30 days and inactive for more than 7 days. You can keep it open longer by posting a comment to the review page requesting more input. Adding <!--noautoarchive--> to the review page will prevent further automated actions. AnomieBOT⚡ 10:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houston_Voice

All the edits you had to revert back are being maliciously done by the owner of the Montrose Star (User: Justaluvinlife), she wants to erase the history of the Houston Voice. This page needs to be watched for things like that.

(cur | prev) 18:00, 3 March 2012‎ Mr. Stradivarius (talk | contribs)‎ . . (5,257 bytes) (+3,288)‎ . . (Reverted 2 edits by Justaluvinlife (talk): Consensus in the deletion discussion was that this article should be about the Houst...) (undo) (cur | prev) 17:55, 3 March 2012‎ Justaluvinlife (talk | contribs)‎ . . (1,969 bytes) (-546)‎ . . (undo) (Tag: categories removed) (cur | prev) 17:49, 3 March 2012‎ Justaluvinlife (talk | contribs)‎ . . (2,515 bytes) (-2,742)‎ . . (undo) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.42.8 (talk)

Hello, that wasnt the user I was looking for. I was looking for the guy that deleted my porta-brunch page because of copyright infringment, and as I understand, that user had no idea I had all rights to the content I posted. Plus, I have no idea how to work this talk thing. Screenbones (talk) 09:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I can sympathise with you about the difficulty of leaving messages, etc. - Wikipedia has a notoriously difficult learning curve. The basic problem here is that we have to assume that anything that is copied from an external site is a copyright violation until we have verified that it was uploaded with permission from the copyright holder. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials and Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for the details. Even if you do have permission though, your text will not be accepted onto Wikipedia unless it is verifiable and written from a neutral point of view - it is not enough to just give Wikipedia copyright permission! I recommend trying to submit the article through articles for creation, which should allow you more time to draft it before anyone would think of tagging it for deletion. I also recommend reading the essay "your first article" if you haven't done so already. Let me know if you have any questions about any of this. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so I replied to what you said on my talk page, and I got this:

This is an automated message. Your editor review is scheduled to be closed on 3 June 2012 because it will have been open for more than 30 days and inactive for more than 7 days. You can keep it open longer by posting a comment to the review page requesting more input. Adding to the review page will prevent further automated actions. AnomieBOT⚡ 10:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

What does that even mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Screenbones (talk • contribs) 09:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't mind that message - it doesn't have anything to do with you. It's just the message that was left on this talk page before yours. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Dear Sir

Why and under what authority are you proposing that my article is deleted?

Firstly, I am the writer of the article and also the director of the film. If you care to look at the foot of the article you will see a link to the movie's website where there is FOOTAGE from the film, photographs from the production and other information.

If you complete a google search you will find a Facebook group (TWO in fact), plus links to other mentions including an article I wrote for an online magazine which uses SCREEN GRABS from the film.

Why would you wish to interfere? You will see that MY WEBSITE has been endorsed by SEAN YOUNG female star of the original who POSED WITH MY FEMALE STAR for photographs?

I can honestly see no reason why you wish to be so negative. Please withdraw this request NOW? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Hevingham (talk • contribs) 11:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello Mark, and thanks for your message. First, I just want to say that my proposed deletion was not meant as a judgement about the film or about your article at all - it was just a necessary consequence of Wikipedia's guidelines about what makes a subject suitable to write about. Actually, when I read the article, it made me chuckle, and then it made me want to see the film. So let me try and answer your questions, starting with the "why". The reason why I'm proposing the article for deletion is because it doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for films. Basically, the film needs to have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the film itself. That usually means that they need to have been reviewed in major newspapers or by respected film critics, and to have received at least a paragraph of coverage. (See also this guide to notability on Wikipedia.) I couldn't find any evidence of this from my search on the internet, but if you are aware of any such sources, please let me know. As for the "under what authority" part, the process of proposed deletion is a Wikipedia policy which you can find here. Any editor can use it, but the page will only be deleted if a Wikipedia administrator judges that the page should be deleted per our deletion policy. I'll be happy to remove the deletion template if you can find any more independent sources about the film, but otherwise I will leave it there. (Note that you are free to remove the deletion notice yourself, however.) Let me know if you have any more questions. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations on your successful RfA! And you're welcome. ;) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

	at my successful RFA
	You still get a flower, and thanks for the chuckle. (I'll try and keep it slow) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Stradivarius,

Thanks for the heads up.

How can i add the info about the company please? can you guide me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samarpatel (talk • contribs) 13:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi again. First of all, you want to check that the company passes the notability guidelines for companies. If it doesn't pass this test, then we can't have an article on it at all! Next, you probably want to have a look at the FAQ for businesses. If you have any more questions after reading these, feel free to ask. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes, and you will also probably find the plain and simple guide to conflicts of interest to be useful, whether you have a conflict of interest or not. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Stradivarius,

I am commenting in regards to Skulduggery Pleasant: Kingdom of the Wicked. I understand your reasoning behind its redirection to Skulduggery Pleasant (series), however I kindly ask your help or advice in improving the article. If your oppinion is to hold off the article until the book has been released I will not edit it. However if in the mean-time there might be something to say I would like to say it.

With respect, Fotj (talk) 08:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)FOTJ

Hi there Fotj, and thanks for the message. I'm glad that you can understand the reasoning I left in the edit summary when I redirected the page. I agree that this book will likely be notable when it is released, but for the moment I don't see any indication that it passes Wikipedia's notability guidelines for books. For it to count as "notable" on Wikipedia, there need to be multiple sources about the book that are both independent of the book itself and that satisfy Wikipedia's guidelines for identifying reliable sources. In this case that will probably mean reviews of the book published in newspapers or possibly in academic journals. Until these sources are available, I would say it is too soon for the book to have an article. Let me know if you have any more questions about this. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{(have a chat)} 11:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I appreciate your constructive criticism regarding an AfD discussion I closed. I will refrain from closing AfD discussions from now on until I do not fully understand the policies involved and have more experience in the AfD process. I still find it a bit hard to judge the consensus in discussions right now. Thank You.  TOW  talk  01:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Funny to cross paths there, too. It took me a few minutes to figure out what was going on, but it looks all straightened out now. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the very late reply here! Actually, this was just because I had your user page on my watchlist, and I thought that it would be very odd for you to be given a speedy deletion warning. And sure enough, there was more to it than met the eye, so I fixed the damage. Nothing more than that, really. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that little DRN arbitration snafu for me. I wasn't aware of the arbitration thing until I logged in and saw an extremely confusing email from PCPP. I didn't realize this had blown up so much. Geez - you walk away for a day or two and everything goes nuts. He told me in the e-mail that one of the other users accused him of "trying to use mediators to pressure and intimidate admins," whatever the hell that means. Anyway, thanks for bailing me out. Sleddog116 (talk) 21:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

No worries. Looks like everything is sorted out for now - at least until the arbitration case is closed, anyway. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for trying. At WP:VPT someone noted that it is an old known problem. -DePiep (talk) 14:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, after playing around with it for a while I thought it might be something like that. You might need a bot to get the functionality, but that sounds like a bit too much hassle for what you're trying to do. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

It is my pleasure to inform you that your nomination to the Mediation Committee has been closed as successful. The open tasks template, which you might like to add to your watchlist, is for co-ordinating our open cases; please feel free to take on an unassigned dispute at any time. I have also subscribed your e-mail address to the committee mailing list, which is occasionally used for internal discussion and for periodical updates; feel free to post to this at any point if you need feedback from the other mediators. If you have any questions, please let me know. I look forward to working with you! --WGFinley (talk) 18:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! I've sent a message to the mailing list thanking everyone for their welcomes as well. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 02:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Stradivarius. Thank you for commenting on my new article about Robin Kirkby. I feel that the sources I have used are reliable - can you please give me more specific guidance on which ones have not passed the criteria? I would very much like to improve the article and would appreciate your guidance. Regarding the subject, which you have stated does not meet notability criteria, can you please also clarify why you have come to this conclusion? In his field of Competitive Intelligence, there are also articles on wikipedia about other individuals of a similar caliber. Thanks for your help. 2012abc (talk) 14:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)2012abc

Hello 2012abc, and thanks for the message. First off, I was discounting all the sources that only make a passing mention of Mr. Kirkby - we need at least a couple of paragraphs about him, and preferably more. That leaves us with the following three sources:

• [1] This looks like the sort of biography that the subject would submit to the conference board themselves, meaning that the source is not independent.
• [2] This source includes a quote by Mr. Kirkby, but doesn't actually say anything about him. This is not considered to be "significant coverage" on Wikipedia.
• [3] This is the source that looks the most likely out of all of them, but I'm afraid it still falls short of our criteria. First, it is a special-interest publication, and these kinds of publications are usually less useful in proving notability than general publications, e.g. national newspapers or general-purpose books. Second, it is not clear what kind of fact-checking they might do or what the editorial process is, two things we look for when trying to decide if a source is reliable. Have a look at the guidelines on identifying reliable sources for more details.

For more details about the concept of "notability" on Wikipedia, have a look at Wikipedia:Notability. Or an even better page to look at might be this simplified guide on how to judge notability. Let me know if you have any more questions. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 23:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok so im done with this im being taken advantage of good life — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.247.161.62 (talk) 20:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, what's the point of undoing my removal of the Racing section from the Belt Sander article? Stephanwehner (talk) 05:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Stephan, and thanks for the message. Generally on Wikipedia we like to cover all aspects of a subject, and belt-sander racing seems perfectly worthy of a mention in the belt sander article. Conversely, belt-sander racing looks notable enough that we can have a stand-alone article on it. The guideline I pointed to in my edit summary, Wikipedia:Summary style, is the usual accepted way of dealing with this sort of situation - the situation where it is possible to cover the same subject in multiple articles. Simply put, the solution is to have a short summary in the main article, and a more in-depth treatment in the daughter article. So the "belt-sander racing" section in the belt sander article can have a summary of belt-sander racing plus a link to Belt-sander racing, and Belt-sander racing itself can treat the subject in more depth. Does that make things clearer? Feel free to ask more questions if you want me to clarify anything. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 05:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

That sounds all good, and thanks for the detailed explanation about short summaries, etc. which is quite interesting. I think that belt sander races don't deserve to be highlighted and explained beyond a "See Also" in an article on belt sanders (whoever finds that interesting will simply follow the "See Also" link.) Especially since the belt sander article is not that long. (@Stradivarius) Stephanwehner (talk) 09:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

If you think that it would be undue weight to have belt-sander racing in the belt sander article, then I won't stop you from removing it. I don't really mind about the content one way or the other - as long as you realise that this is an exception, rather than the rule, that's the main thing. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I really don't want to disturb you, but would you mind terribly making a quick comment (about whether to present the quote verbatim or not) at Talk:Comparison_of_rugby_league_and_rugby_union#Moving_on?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 09:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Gibson. Sorry, but I try and make it a rule not to get involved on the talk pages of articles that have been to DRN. If you're still having issues working things out, how about starting an RfC? An RfC was also suggested in the DRN thread, and I think it would be a reasonable way to go about resolving this. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 10:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Understood.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 10:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for my mistake in Wiki formatting. Thanks for the heads up — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paxti (talk • contribs) 10:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

No problem! And if you have any questions about AfD or Wikipedia in general, just let me know. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 11:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

FYI... I am on vacation for two weeks... and have limited internet access (I have to go to a local town library). So, I will not be very active with the RFC on Verifiability for the next week or so. I will try to log in every few days to keep tabs on how things are going. Don't let my lack of active participation slow the process down. Best of luck. Blueboar (talk) 19:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, got it. Thanks for letting me know. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 21:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Lol, it's that moment where they ask for volunteers to step forward and everyone but you takes a step back : )

Oh wait, I really did volunteer. (me and my big mouth)

lol, kidding aside, I'm more than happy to help out (else I wouldn't have volunteered, obviously)

I just never like to get in the way in case someone else prefers to help in a particular instance.

Oh and by the way, from your prose style, I get the impression that you could charm the wool off sheep, saving shearmen the cost of blades : )

(A compliment, I assure you : )

Anyway, thanks for the note. I've been reading a bit of the background (once I found the links in your contribs : )

If I have questions, be assured I will ask : ) - jc37 04:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I guess my post was a little under-linked - my bad. And compliment duly accepted. ;) — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{(have a chat)} 04:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi can you tell me why you think the Pappzd page may not be suitable for Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmking11 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mmking11. I nominated the page for deletion because I don't think it meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for web content. For Pappzd to have an article in Wikipedia, there needs to be significant coverage of it in reliable sources that are independent of the website itself. That means that the coverage of it should be at least a paragraph, preferably more; the sources that have that coverage should pass Wikipedia's guidelines on identifying reliable sources; and the sources shouldn't have any relation to Pappzd. If you are aware of any such sources, then you can add them to the article and make a note of it at the deletion discussion, and then the article may be kept. Without the sources, though, I'm afraid that it is likely to be deleted. Let me know if you have any questions about this. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I have information about he from polish wikipedia version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichazPl (talk • contribs) 15:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for closing the "Beatles" thread on DRN. I was going to close it, but my power was knocked out by the derecho last month, and by the time it came back on, DRN had completely slipped my mind. Sleddog116 (talk) 17:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Always a pleasure. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 21:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:

• Link to Survey (should take between 5-10 minutes): http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/N8FQ6MM

It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at [email protected]. Cheers! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

On the Berber people listing at DRN, just in case you haven't spotted it, Jayjg hasn't edited Wikipedia since May 31, 2012, and RobertMfromLI hasn't edited that article or its talk page since August, 2011. Omar-Toons may be the only opponent who is still active there. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I forgot to check when they were all last active, so it's a good job you pointed it out. In that case we can probably kick things off if/when Omar-Toons leaves a statement. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 21:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

You closed this dispute too soon, we were still waiting for DocKino to respond. I would have commented but I didn't want to be a bother. Please re-open this unsettled dispute. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi GabeMc. I knew that the dispute was unresolved when I closed it, and sorry if I was treading on your toes there. Normally at DRN we close threads if they are inactive for a while (I think the current standard is five days), rather than just leaving them there until they are resolved or moved to RfC or MedCom, etc. This is because it's very hard for us to second-guess the intentions of editors who haven't commented on a dispute or who have been inactive (and also because there is only limited space at the noticeboard). Sometimes the editors come back and take up the dispute again; sometimes they prefer to leave the dispute unresolved and move on to new things.

I have no problem with opening the dispute thread back up, but I think we should probably do this when DocKino comes back, rather than before. If he does come back and wishes to take up the dispute again, then any editor should feel free to file a new dispute or to unarchive the old thread. Or if you prefer, you can just drop a note here to let me know, and I'll open it back up myself. I'll also leave DocKino a note on his talk page letting him know what his options are.

This situation is actually a problem with the DRN system we have, which isn't very fair on editors who are only infrequently active, and isn't as clear as it could be when there are several related disputes on one particular article over a long period of time. There are plans in the works to fix this, maybe by giving each dispute its own subpage in the style of WP:SPI. But for now we have to work with the system we have. Sorry that this isn't ideal, but does this address some of your concerns? Best — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{(have a chat)} 04:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I would very much prefer that the dispute be re-opened now please, thanks. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I've started a thread on this at WT:DRN#The Beatles close. Let's see what the other noticeboard volunteers think. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi

I notice that you have made several changes to my Christopher Whall and his followers series. They have all made improvements and I am most grateful to you.

You created a "navbox" so that there was a link available to all the articles/listings in this series and this is great.

I would like to add a couple of new articles to the "navbox" but not quite sure how I access it to do an edit.

I would be grateful if you could point me in the right direction.

Again thanks for the interest.

Weglinde (talk) 10:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Weglinde! You can find it at Template:Christopher Whall. It's also possible to get there by clicking the small "v" in the top-left-hand corner of the navbox. (If you tried this before, it looks like the link was broken - I've fixed it, so it should be working now.) Let me know if you need any more pointers. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 10:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Stradavarius, Thanks for coming over on the Iain King deletion - good to have you on board. For Google, I find there's not a single trick, but several tools. One is to vary the search term, including using lots of '+' signs, and in this case, adding the full name of the book and the publisher. Another is to try the other Google search functions, like Google books, and Google images. Ollie Cromwell (talk) 19:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Um, I wouldn't really say I'm "on board", but thanks. For the Google stuff, what I was really asking was how did you find that specific material on King? I wasn't aware of any way to search inside Amazon previews, and if you know of one it could be very useful. Best — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{(have a chat)} 03:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for welcoming me. I'm looking for the confirmed rights. I mostly add reference, but it is annoying to put CAPTCHA every time I save edit. Thanks. Sandandclaysilt (talk) 09:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

It's annoying, I know, but I wouldn't worry about it too much. Just one more edit and four more days' wait, and you will be autoconfirmed. Feel free to ask any questions you might have in the meantime, though! Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• diff of User talk:Codename Lisa

fyi, Br'er Rabbit (talk) 13:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the whole thing unfold, as I had the page on my watchlist after I welcomed her. It looks like things have calmed down now, which was the main thing I was concerned about. Hopefully I didn't put my foot in it too much on the technical front there - with wikicode I'm pretty good, but I tend to get lost when things get on to php and css. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 02:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello there. I have recently made a proposal to change the way that disputes are handled and filed at DRN. As you've listed yourself as a volunteer at DRN, I would appreciate your input. You can find the thread here. Regards, Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 02:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Now User talk:Penyulap is disrupting the straw poll at Sgt Pepper. What should I do, can you help with this please? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi GabeMc, and sorry for not replying sooner. It looks like Feezo is already handling this, so there isn't much left for me to do. I want to echo his sentiment about user conduct issues, though. For a successful mediation it is vital that the mediators maintain neutrality, and it would be very hard to deal with user conduct issues and still be seen as neutral by all the parties. Sorry I couldn't be of more help here, but let me know if you have any other questions about the mediation. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 17:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Right on, sorry to have even asked. I completely agree that the mediators should not get involved with these side-disruptions. Cheers! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Stradivarius,

Thank you for your kind message. It is wonderful to be welcomed into this community. Emboldened, I will continue to edit the Language acquisition and Language development entries (and some others, too), as at the moment they're in dire straits.

I will take you up on your kind offer and ask you questions when I'm in trouble.

Until then, good bye and the best,

Eransgran Eransgran (talk) 17:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! Any time. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 21:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Uhm, pun not intended... — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{(have a chat)} 05:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I also said this at the mediation talk page, but I just realized that the RfC is going to close in four days. If, as I hope, we are going to do another watchlist notice, we really need to act on it now. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Dispute Resolution for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 02:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't find any recommendations for improvement, so instead I turned this blue. How do you fancy it? Worm^TT(talk) 10:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for nominating me! I've answered the questions, and I'm waiting for my co-nominator to write their nomination statement. That should hopefully appear some time today. Once it's up, we're ready to go. I might wait until tomorrow to transclude depending on what time it ends up being here, though. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Glad to. Proud to. I've been really impressed with everything I've seen, you'll make an excellent admin. Worm^TT(talk) 09:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Uh-oh. It looks like I've just been affected by a rangeblock placed by Elockid, so I won't be able to edit my RfA until it's sorted out. Could a passing admin give me the ip-block-exempt flag temporarily so I can answer any questions that come up? Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I'm looking at Special:Log/Elockid and the last range block was 3 days ago. - jc37 13:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)note

I've seen a rangeblock notice for my IP range before (at around Christmas-time), but that time it didn't affect me after I logged in. This time, I can't edit using my account either. Plus, it looks like the instructions at Template:Autoblock are out of date. Or at least, I don't see the automatically-generated {{unblock-auto|...}} code that is supposed to be there. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe I have given this out before.

I took a look at Wikipedia:Ip_exempt#Used_to_bypass_an_IP_address_range_block.

In the future it looks like you were to post an unblock request here explaining the situation.

(Course if your RfA is successful, then there will be no need : ) - jc37 13:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh and I found it humourous how many people "voted" support in your RfA in the meantime without having even checked your talk page first : ) - jc37 13:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Yes, I had just gathered that a formal unblock request was the proper way to do things after reading through the documentation. I would have probably done it before you had issued the ipblock-exempt flag, if not for the {{unblock-auto}} issue I mentioned above. Looks like I still have a lot to learn about blocks, but I'm glad that things have been sorted out in the meantime. (And yes, it worked - I can edit again now.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The adminship tools are definitely a learning experience. - jc37 14:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Anyways, don't see any problems with the IP block exemption. Elockid ^(Talk) 15:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

No worries. I admit the timing wasn't the best, but I know it wasn't your fault, and all's well that ends well, eh? :) And come to think of it, I should probably have let you know what happened sooner, given that the handing-out of ipblock-exempt was slightly unorthodox. Let me know if there are any other details you need to know. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 15:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I have a rather unusual request to make. I was randomly browsing some article history pages on Wikipedia, when I stumbled upon the user page of User:Sandandclaysilt, whom you have evidently helped. As the user mentioned, s/he tried to reference some BLPs, but then started making some unconstructive edits. Sandandclaysilt tried to tamper with Cluebot NG and then made some edits to the featured article of the day, Manchester Ship Canal. S/he ran into 3RR with some other editors, and then User:Waggers blocked him/her indefinitely as a "vandalism-only account". I think that the BLP edits show this user still had good faith. Trying to shut off Cluebot might be explained as case of WP:BEANS. Overall, I think this user's edits reflect not a hardened vandal, but rather a case of WP:BITE. However, as an editor of six years experience but only 250 edits, I don't feel comfortable taking this case to the blocking admins. I hope you will consider this request and give me an explanation should your opinion differ from mine. Thank you. Altamel (talk) 22:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I've left a note on Waggers' talk page, so hopefully he can outline his reasoning for you. It's usually best to ask the blocking admin directly at first, so don't be afraid about doing so next time. Also, you have just as many rights as a user with tens of thousands of edits, so edit count is really not a problem here. And admins aren't all scary, honest. :) Let's wait until Waggers comments, and we can continue discussing it after that if you want. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 23:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for forwarding my message. I must say that I'm disappointed by the decision--there's no way we can tell that the first few reference edits were bad faith edits, and it's a stretch to deem User:Sandandclaysilt vandalism-only with the first few edits questionable as to their nature. It concerns me that such policy will drive away newcomers. But like I told Waggers, I'm not going to take this any further. Thanks for helping me out with this matter. By the way, good luck with your RfA. Altamel (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Since barring a psychotic break or Wikipedia imploding you will be an admin in a few days given the state of the nomination, I am taking this opportunity to scoop the masses and congratulate you on your all-but-inevitable successful promotion. If you ever need any new admin help (or for any reason), please feel free to drop by.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your confidence! I don't like to assume too much though, so I'll wait until the RfA is actually over before I decide whether to celebrate or not. :) I'll remember your kind offer of help, and I may very well take you up on it if I pass. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 05:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey all. Some quick but important updates on what we've been up to and what's coming up next :).

The curation toolbar, our Wikimedia-supported twinkle replacement. We're going to be deploying it, along with a pile of bugfixes, to wikipedia on 9 August. After a few days to check it doesn't make anything explode or die, we'll be sticking up a big notice and sending out an additional newsletter inviting people to test it out and give us feedback :). This will be followed by two office hours sessions - one on Tuesday the 14th of August at 19:00 UTC for all us Europeans, and one on Wednesday the 15th at 23:00 UTC for the East Coasters out there :). As always, these will be held in #wikimedia-office; drop me a note if you want to know how to easily get on IRC, or if you aren't able to attend but would like the logs.

I hope to see a lot of you there; it's going to be a big day for everyone involved, I think :). I'll have more notes after the deployment! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I've collapsed the thread. Sorry, but would you mind continuing this conversation at the DRN thread? It's better if we can keep everything in one place. And Red Rose, you are going to need to be more specific - at the moment I have no idea what "attacks" you are talking about. Can you send me an email with some of the diffs? Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 21:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I am referring to personal attacks that started on the AY talk page with Sitush and continues even now- with many warnings. I would be happy to but I can't locate on how to add my email addressRed Rose 13 (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

You can enable email via the "My preferences" link at the top of every page. If you want to comment on the conduct of the other editors involved, then it is probably best to do it privately to me via email. Commenting on the other editors' conduct in public, at this stage, is only going to make it harder to resolve the dispute. On Wikipedia it is usually best to hold off on commenting on user conduct unless it becomes a real problem. More often than not, problems can be avoided if we assume good faith. (If user conduct does become a real problem we have processes to deal with that; I don't think we are at that stage with this dispute, however.) Let me know if you have more questions about enabling email, and I'll walk you through the process. And if Tat Sat and NestedVariable are reading this, my advice applies equally to you as well. Best — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{(have a chat)} 07:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, here is some reading on how to act in a situation like this: WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:IPAT, WP:AAGF, WP:GLUE, and finally, the parts about user conduct at WP:DR. Sorry about the alphabet soup, but if you read all of these it should give you a much better idea about the kind of attitude that will help in this situation. Let me know if you have any questions about them! — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{(have a chat)} 07:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you. As far as I am concerned I will be reading the links. Tat Sat (talk) 12:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Stradivarius, what happened to our discussion?Red Rose 13 (talk) 05:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It was archived as stale - but I will be opening a formal mediation request about the dispute and providing links to all involved. Regards, Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 05:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• Hello, Mr. Stradivarius, although a formal mediation request was opened, it says "closed". What is happening? Thank you and best regards, Tat Sat (talk) 03:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your mail, and the suggestions you proposed. I will reply to it soon.--andreasegde (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I am publicly replying to a Wiki-mail, so my comments may not be completely understood. I apologise.

• With respect, I don’t see a present “deadlock” regarding the Triangular Diplomacy II compromise, because it was discounted on 31 July 2012.: “For these reasons, the mediators see the mid-sentence compromise as an unsatisfactory solution.”
• I understand that both Feezo and yourself did try “to find a long-lasting solution”, but discounting the aforementioned compromise in the mediation throws the issue back into the no-man's land of opposing camps. If one side is now allowed to enforce a strict rule about which there have been so many virulent disagreements, it will be challenged by future editors at some point.
• By proposing Triangular Diplomacy II, I was not advocating a “restriction of the English language”, but advocating the expansion of the terminology. IMO, the repeated use of a name throughout an article reads like fancruft: “In 1960, Smith studied at Yale. In 1962, Smith [he?] then went to study at…” I wonder if having no “past precedent” for this precludes Wikipedia from changing it?
• I whole-heartedly agree with, “If it is going to be enforced, though, then it would affect a great many articles”. This is my greatest fear for the future of Wikipedia’s music-related articles. Having taken part in the most horrendous arguments about “the/The” problem over six years, I can not/do not want to contemplate that scenario, because it will create disagreements about many other articles.
• The Mos is written by everyone that feels inclined to do so, but reading this made me feel uneasy, as it was a change that an editor who was involved in the “mediation” actually made. Ho-hum, let’s put that to one side.
• Making the “Triangular Diplomacy a voluntary solution” is a wonderful idea, but is anybody truly confident that it would work? I have seen many recent reverts, from, “The Beatles played… in 1960”, to “In 1960, the Beatles played…” (so as to make a point, no doubt). Sad, but true.
• As a previous advocate of “The”, but then the advocate of a compromise which was warmly welcomed, I say let the Young Guns have their day. It is the nature of youth to think when a battle has been won, the war has also been won, but history has always proven that consensus, and not a defined law, will always prevail. I thank you.--andreasegde (talk) 17:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

{{Di-no author-notice}} can be speedily deleted per G6 and/or G8, since it's dependent on a template that was deleted two years ago. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Good point! Thanks for adding the speedy tag. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 00:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations, I have just closed your RfA as successful and made you an administrator. Take a look at the administrators' how-to guide and the administrators' reading list if you haven't read those already. Also, the practice exercises at the new admin school may be useful. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to get in touch on my talk page. WJBscribe (talk) 11:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! I shall wield my new mop with pride. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 11:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Excellent :) Worm^TT(talk) 11:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• Congrats, well earned. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks Dennis. That mop now looks strangely glamorous. ;) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 11:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations! 125 support, 0 neutral, 0 oppose. And great working with you and the RFC. Now, keep your promise not to get all crazy and delete the main page.  :-) North8000 (talk) 12:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! I never dreamed that I would get that much support - I'm feeling a little bit shocked at the moment, to be honest. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Congrats! Another RfA with 0 opposes and 0 neutrals. We certainly are getting the top seeds to admin status. Always trusted your ability and all the best. TheSpecialUser ^TSU 15:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 15:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm very delighted, and very unsurprised! I cannot think of anyone whom I would trust more than you. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Tryptofish! It means a lot. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 18:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations not only on becoming an admin but on the tremendous, very positive support you received.(olive (talk) 18:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC))

Yes, I never expected it to be unanimous! Thank you. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 18:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Congrats. I have not participated in the RfA, but think you will be a great sysop. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 19:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ebe! I appreciate your trust in me, and I shall be diligent in my mopping. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 02:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Good luck with your new job! Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 02:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)