User talk:Aoidh/Archives/2012

Fedora could use expertise
Hey, how about you zero in on the reappearance, of the Michael Jackson fan who you evidently don't consider a vandal. I could use some help over there.-- Djathinkimacowboy vandals' playground 06:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It appears to been resolved, however, you are correct that I do not consider that vandalism. If it doesn't fall under one of the criteria at WP:VANDTYPES, it isn't vandalism under Wikipedia's definition.  A good-faith edit to add content, although unsourced, is not vandalism. - SudoGhost 22:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear, SudoGhost
Hi, SudoGhost

here is my reply to your kind message. After then, same IPuser re-started irrational reversion again. He/she always pretend to discuss after every reversion. However, his/her incredible discussion written in almost unreadable English, lacks reliable sources. In my eyes, it seems sabotage against normal article editing, or purely vandalism. In this case, what is better way for me ? I expect your kindly advice... --Clusternote (talk) 20:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks like a content dispute to me. Perhaps I'm overlooking something, but I don't see anything that falls under WP:VANDTYPES. - SudoGhost 13:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Ravenloft links
Hello! I have placed a question concerning your last edit of Ravenloft here. Maybe you would like to give your opinion? Thanks. Daranios (talk) 19:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've responded on the article's talk page. Thanks. - SudoGhost 10:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:NPOV? I think you meant WP:NOR, no?
This is regarding your Dublin Dr Pepper revert. No? I figure the papers today (12th) will be the references we need. Remains to be seen, I suppose. - Denimadept (talk) 08:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I meant WP:NPOV. It was clear what the IP thought of the situation when they made they edit, and if readers are easily able to tell an editor's position on something, it isn't written with a neutral point-of-view.  I've reworded it to reflect what is in the source given. - SudoGhost 09:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That works. - Denimadept (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

McRapperson being notable
Hi buddy,

Please check reference 1 in Rappy McRapperson. A news paper article, even with the creator of the Captain Underpants series, saying he made the theme song. This, according to WP:MUSIC, according to number 10 of "Musicians", means he is notable. If a newspaper article isn't reliable enough, you can always personally pop open an episode of the show, and watch the credits; where it will say "Joshua Katz" as the person who made the theme song and music for the show.

According to WP:MUSIC, this means he's notable. If you disagree, I am sorry for your personal opinion; but it clearly says right there that it means he's notable.

^_________^

HollidayMasterofMystery (talk) 08:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * As there is an ongoing AfD, I would request you to post this piece of information over there, rather than on the talk page of another editor. Doing so allows your opinion to be considered during the debate. Thank you. ZZArch  talk to me 08:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Untitled
Thank you for your kind welcome. Hope you are well. Namu-myoho-renge-kyo. - Steve Milburn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Milburn (talk • contribs) 13:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

"Undue"
Hi! About this edit

This is NOT an undue emphasis on the school. Here are reasons why:
 * 1. The school is located in an unincorporated area. The nearest associated city is actually in DeKalb County. So the school is best associated with the county itself
 * When listing schools in a county article, put more emphasis on schools in unincorporated areas.
 * 2. Outerlying suburban counties of major metropolitan areas typically have few private schools. Listing every one of them would not be "undue"
 * 3. Even though it's not a high school, it's been documented so extensively by the media, that it's clearly notable, and is more notable than any other private schools in the county

Now I would like for it to be added back Thank you WhisperToMe (talk) 20:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have no objections, may I add it back? WhisperToMe (talk) 22:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Since it was a few days, with no response, I decided to add it back. Thank you, WhisperToMe (talk) 19:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to shut down WP Geographic Coordinates & ban coordinates on wikipedia articles
This means you. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Changes to 2010 statistics (World's busiest airports)
Dear SudoGhost, how are you? I want to ask one question. How we can deal with statistics for 2010? You can remember that since 2008 we are publishing not 30, but 50 busiest airports. But in 2010 we didn't do that, because ACI hadn't published the official press release and ATW online also hand't. In this case, how we can deal with number of airports? Should we find other sources, where 50 airports is shown or should it remain again in 30? How we can solve it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alisher1990 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I found statistics made by New York Airport Authorities. Their PDF-attachment also contains TOP50 busiest airports for 2010. WIth links to ACI. If you want, I can e-mail you. Please, provide me your e-mail address. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alisher1990 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Using multiple figures and translating them into rankings is WP:SYNTH, which is not allowed. If a reliable source doesn't specifically say that Airport XYZ is ranked #31, then the article cannot say it either. - SudoGhost 13:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with your assertion that using figures published elsewhere on the web and including them in the rankings is WP:SYNTH. I was frustrated by not having more than 30 airports listed for 2010, when 50 had been listed for 2008-09, so I did rather painstaking research to determine the next 20 in line (and I am certain that my research was accurate.) Unfortunately, two airports in the 40's published only fiscal-year, not calendar-year figures, so I excluded them, which meant I could include only the next 10 busiest airports in 2010 (31-40). This is not WP:SYNTH, which implies a fallacious or unsupportable argument. I did cite multiple verifiable sources, but I did so correctly, and noted in the intro to the 2010 list that I had done so. Of course, I would prefer that you restore my edits, which I absolutely stand behind, but, at the least, do not make the assertion that they were any way sloppy or inaccurate, because they were not. Donleitz (talk) 22:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well that's exactly the point. You compiled a list of 20 additional figures, but there's no proof that these are the only additional figures.  Just because Airport X is next in line with what you've gathered, that does not mean that there is not an Airport Y in existence that has a higher number, that you did not have the information for.  These two airports you mentioned, since they did not publish figures you were able to find, they do not factor in?  Unless you have a reliable source that specifically says that a certain airport has a certain ranking, you cannot conclude that the figures you compiled translate into rankings.  As for "sloppy or inaccurate", you're reading into something that isn't there and was not implied.  To piecemeal sources to create an additional meaning from those sources is synthesis.  This is not to say it is "sloppy or inaccurate", but that it is not allowed on Wikipedia articles. - SudoGhost 22:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Removing my cited facts from Dublin Dr Pepper
Hi,

I am well aware of the wikipedia guidelines, especially in neutrality. I have edited in the past with no problem. The statements I added to the article were all cited quotes from two different online news stories. I will find the articles again and re-edit the page. RyanLSumner (talk) 02:00, 18 January 2012 (UTC)RyanLSumner
 * Cited is not the same as neutral, and the edit was not completely reflected in the sources given. For example, the MSN source in your edit does not in any way reflect the information you cited it with, save for a comment below the article itself. Please discuss on the articles talk page before you attempt to reinsert the material into the article.  Thank you. - SudoGhost 11:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Parabola GNU/Linux
As you will probably have seen by now this AFD has closed as "no consensus", not on the DistroWatch ref, but on the FSF listing. That is an interesting outcome and will have implications for other articles in the future, such as gNewSense and so on. Now that this rather heated debate is done I did want to say that I thought you did a great job in calmly managing this rather complex discussion, it was good working with you on it. - Ahunt (talk) 13:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I apparently tend to ramble, and I didn't notice it until I re-read through that AfD.  Although I am of the opinion that DistroWatch is not a reliable source, I do think that before anyone actually acts on that or creates an AfD based on that alone, that perhaps a consensus should be established that concerns only that subject, perhaps at WP:LINUX or somewhere appropriate.  - SudoGhost 19:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That is probably not a bad idea, perhaps the Reliable sources/Noticeboard is the place to bring it up. The closing admin was of the opinion that while DW can be cited as a ref, it does not confer notability to a subject just by having a page, because of their sales angle on those listings. As you can tell during the course of the AFD you managed to convince me of that, too! In reading over the AFD text I wouldn't say you were rambling. I thought you made good, thorough and convincing arguments and on top of that were very civil throughout as well, all of which is commendable. - Ahunt (talk) 01:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I do appreciate the kind words, thank you. - SudoGhost 05:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Calabe1992 03:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit war at GNU General Public License
I see that you posted an edit war warning at User talk:Jxself. However, you seem to have overlooked the fact that you have actually made more reverts there than that editor. You are right in saying that, whatever the merits of "GNU?Linux", "Linux" is the common name. However, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring is, in essence, "don't edit war", not "don't edit war unless you are convinced you are right". JamesBWatson (talk) 20:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In the past 24 hours, I have made 2 reverts on that article. I am not "edit warring because I'm right", I'm restoring the consensus of WP:LINUX, the references in the article itself, and WP:COMMONNAME, in conjunction with the discussion that took place on the talk page.  I'm not aware of any policy that says that consensus and discussion can be overridden by a single editor whose only two edits have been to ignore that consensus without any attempt at discussion, and even if there was, that does not seem constructive in any way.  However, please don't take that as an excuse for edit warring; I have no intention to edit the article any further today.  - SudoGhost 20:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually I count three. I don't understand how you're "restoring" anything, though, given that it looks like the article about the GNU General Public License has consistently used GNU/Linux in the past. Any discussion in the Linux article is about that article, certainly not for all of Wikipedia. One of the reasons that it was accepted on that particular article is because that article includes information on GNU history, and the naming controversy, but that's hardly a warrant to go around and change existing uses of GNU/Linux to Linux. Wikipedia acknowledges the naming controversy and so it's inappropriate to be trying to standardize. Jxself (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC).


 * User:Jxself: Your two edits in question 1 and 2 are mostly to change the titles of cited articles to include the words "GNU/Linux" when the original cited author of those references did not title his article that way. For instance both those edits change David A. Wheeler's article title from GPL, BSD, and NetBSD - why the GPL rocketed Linux to success to "GPL, BSD, and NetBSD - why the GPL rocketed GNU/Linux to success" and also changed Wheeler's Estimating Linux's Size to "Estimating GNU/Linux's Size". This is not a controversy or a content dispute. Changing the name of cited refs is plain vandalism. If you continue to do that you will be blocked. - Ahunt (talk) 22:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * User:Ahunt: I was only returning them to what they said to begin with prior to User:SudoGhost going through the article and performing a mass find-and-replace of all GNU/Linux references to simply "Linux". Even though the cited refs are themselves incorrect for not using the GNU/Linux name I can try to be more careful in the future. However, but not all of the changes made by User:SudoGhost fall into the category you describe so I still stand by what I said above: Wikipedia acknowledges the naming controversy and so it's inappropriate to be trying to standardize and respectfully request that the changes from GNU/Linux to Linux (that are not part of cited refs) are returned to the state they were in prior to Jxself (talk) 05:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The number of reversions made in the last 24-hours was two, not three. I assume the third diff you're looking at is this one, which is adding a reference, not hitting 'undo'.  With that said, there isn't a single instance of "GNU/Linux" that was in use in that article that had any relation to the article GNU/Linux naming controversy, so the fact that this article exists is irrelevant, and to assume that the uses of Linux in the article are specifically referring only to Linux distributions that use GNU tools despite the fact that the references don't support this assertion this would be inappropriate, at best.  This is of course in addition to the fact that Wikipedia uses the common name, not necessarily the "correct" name. - SudoGhost 05:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Requests for comment/F&aelig;
A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:Fæ. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot (talk) 20:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

promotional?
How is what I added to the steampunk work page considered promoting while there are other groups who do The same thing as The vagabonds. Is it do to the fact on the web series it directly linked to the youtube account. If thats the case it can be fixed to link to the website as it does for the performance part. The reason i ask this is do to the fact there are other groups just like the one I posted that link to their sites and are still there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steampunkaether (talk • contribs) 02:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The selection criteria for lists require that entries be notable, and must be supported by reliable third-party sources. Facebook and YouTube accounts, as well as the website of the subject in question are considered self-published sources. Basically, if the subject isn't notable enough to have an article, it typically isn't notable enough to include on a "List of XYZ" article. - SudoGhost 02:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I will see if I can find other sites that have them posted. I have seen them on other websites and have seen them at may conventions as guests and doing some sort of performances at them. Steampunkaether (talk) 02:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, I asked prior because 2 of of the other additions also link to their sites. In the same manner as The Vagabonds page. The only place I've see one of the groups is the florida/texas areas. While the vagabonds have traveled all over the place. Steampunkaether (talk) 02:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed users
Hello, SudoGhost. Thanks for your welcome message. I have a question about autoconfirmed accounts in WP. For example, if I became a autocomfirmed user and I want to request IP block exemption because the Great Firewall of China is blocking WP from time to time and I have to use open proxies to access WP. But according to the article about autoconfirmed users, I will have longer autoconfirm thresholds(90 days and 100 edits). Then, will my autofirmed status be cancelled? Thank you for your help and sorry for my bad English!Zhaofeng Li (talk) 05:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm honestly not sure, but I'm looking into finding out. I've asked some people in IRC, and either I, or someone else will hopefully have an answer for you. - SudoGhost 05:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * From what I've been told, I don't believe autoconfirmed status would be removed for that reason. You could also request autoconfirmed permissions at Requests for permissions (it would be under Confirmed, as being autoconfirmed is also known as being a confirmed user).  They might also be able to better answer any questions you may have about autoconfirmed status.  Hope this helps, and if you have any more questions, I'll be happy to help as best I can.  Again, welcome to Wikipedia. :) - SudoGhost 05:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm going to read more about WP policy before request the exemption. Thanks for your help, it's very kind of you. :P Zhaofeng Li (talk) 06:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Parabola GNU/Linux
I note that while you were removing that OSNews link as SPS I was using it for a ref. Is this not a reliable source? I can't find anything on the OSNews website or the Wikipedia article on it that indicates this is SPS. It looks like a regular internet magazine with editorial oversight. - Ahunt (talk) 01:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, given that Czarkoff is a Wikipedia editor that argued for the notability of the subject, who then wrote a review on (what seems to be a) Slashdot style website, I'm not sure that works as an EL or a ref. - SudoGhost 01:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I looked into it, and it's simply an operating system oriented Slashdot-style website, where the news articles are mostly reposting other news articles with a few originally written entries, all of which are user submitted. As Slashdot is not a reliable source, this one is not either.  While I think the link should be removed and not used as a ref (as I don't think it's reliable), I'd like to hear your input on it and see if perhaps I'm overlooking something about the link. - SudoGhost 02:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it all hangs on editorial oversight. If anyone can just post stuff on OSNews then it isn't reliable, but if users submit articles to an editorial oversight process which then decides which articles to post and which to reject than it meets WP:RS. The latter model is the same one just about any reliable publication uses that accepts outside contributions, from the NY Times, to Flying magazine. The Wikipedia article about OSNews seems to imply that they use the latter model as it lists editors and such on staff. I don't have a problem with WP editors submitting articles to reliable publications and then those being quoted on WP. In this case the author wasn't even the editor who added the link to the article. I contribute to several RS publications and my writing has been quoted on WP after it has been edited and published. I think it all hangs on editorial oversight - we don't want to be quoting SPS stuff that anyone can post, but if it has been reviewed and published by an editorial process that should be fine. - Ahunt (talk) 12:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The OSNews article says that it's based on the Slashdot-style model, which is like this website in that not every news post gets posted, they are reviewed first. WP:QS requires not merely editorial oversight, but meaningful editorial oversight.  The consensus has been decided numerous times that Slashdot isn't a reliable source, so I don't really see how this website is different? - SudoGhost 21:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * This is getting down to details! Do we know what kind of editorial oversight is imposed? In the publications I write for my editors read what I write and then change it or publish or even don't publish it. Does OSNews do that? Do we know? My feeling in this case was that the author was pretty critical of Parabola, so it wasn't a "fluff piece". - Ahunt (talk)

Thigle??
Not sure about this one - you are much better than me.. but maybe User:CO2Northeast 20040302 (talk)
 * I'll take a look. - SudoGhost 01:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd say there something going on there, but CO2 isn't necessarily the only one I'm looking at when I say that. Sunray apparently noticed something as well.  I think there's enough of a reason to open an SPI, but I'd prefer not to do it personally this time, as I feel like by opening these SPIs I'm giving Thigle an indepth "how to avoid detection" pamphlet.  If you decide to open an SPI and they need more information, however, I can provide it.  They haven't edited in a few days, so it may not be necessary, but I'll leave that to your discretion.  - SudoGhost 10:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with your thoughts. I see at least three or four new accounts this time, all of them following similar patterns of behaviour, and betraying a degree of experience with Wikipedia. As you probably saw, when I directly challenged one of them they denied puppetry and all of them stopped contributing. I have to say that 'Thigle' et al. do have a positive effect for me personally - they help me think more deeply about a subject close to my heart, and provide a wonderful basis for the development of tolerance, etc.  However, I doubt that Wikipedia benefits whatsoever. The use of blatant non-sequiturs, a tendency to misinterpret reliable sources, misspellings of simple words like 'course' for 'coarse'; a strong aversion to the idea that the Madhyamaka denies inherent existence and an aversion to the idea that the M. assert conventional existence —in light of overwhelming academic evidence, this is particularly strange—; an unwillingness to respond meaningfully to questions that are pertinent to investigation, incivility, bursts of rewrites, attempts to undermine constructive, collaborative work, a shared editorial trend across Hindu texts, tantra, and the middle-way philosophy, Similar timezones (which is a late evening for me), voracious bursts of intense editorial sessions, pretty meaningless point-scoring, etc.  are quite wearing at times. Anyhow, I will think about your kind offer - and I am grateful for your evidence-gathering mastery. I have not gathered any evidence at all!  The best to you - (20040302 (talk) 10:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC))
 * After another editor came to my attention that seemed to be a sockpuppet of Thigle, I opened an SPI and added CO2Northeast to it as well. I had only listed 2 accounts, but had suspected 5 or 6 accounts. The total of 16 confirmed socks this time around was a bit much. - SudoGhost 15:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

OMGoodness! - 16! Well, I was being driven a bit doolally by it all in the end. Thanks for that and for keeping me in the loop SudoGhost. (20040302 (talk) 16:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC))

Abuse logs
Hello, SudoGhost. I have a question. Today I looked into my abuse log curiously. But sadly, I found that I was logged just for sending barnstars and cookies to User talk:ClueBot Commons(the barnstar is now moved to User:ClueBot_Commons/Awards) and User talk:127.0.0.1. I don't understand, I sent the them by clicking the heart icon on the top of the page, and why I was logged? Is praising someone wrong in WP? I'm looking forward to hearing from you soon. Thank you. Zhaofeng Li (talk) 03:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The abuse log isn't necessarily a "this user definitely did something wrong" log, it's a log of actions that have met certain parameters and have been flagged, sometimes false positives occur. In this instance though, edit filter 423 is simply a temporary way to track usage of the Wikilove tool.  It's just a temporary way to keep track of how and when that tool is used, it doesn't signify "abuse" by any means. - SudoGhost 05:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I got it. Thank you very much. Zhaofeng Li (talk) 05:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

re: Adrenaline Mob
Good afternoon, SG!

re: "Fits the definition" - this is your own personal superlative editorializing. Please undo your edit, and restrict future contributions to the facts only, thanks!

GhostWorks (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC).
 * A supergroup is a music group formed by artists who are already notable or respected in their fields. This is not a personal opinion, it is a verified fact.  Therefore, there is no reason to change the edit, quite the opposite in fact, but if you disagree with this, you're more than welcome to start a discussion on the article's talk page.  Thank you. - SudoGhost 17:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Sagamore of the Wabash
Hi,

Just curious how you would suggest I post confirmation of my post which you have removed.

The award was presented during a telecast May 21, 2004 on WPTA TV. I possess the certificate plus the written letter from the Governor bestowing the award. I don't know of any other sources of confirmation for this, unless I post a copy of the certificate somewhere to be viewed.

I also notice other recipients have no citations next to their entries?

Any help

VictorlockeVictorlocke (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The entry was placed in the "Sachem Award" section, which is a different award than the Sagamore of the Wabash. The Sachem Award was created in 2006, and the earliest recipients were for 2005 and 2006.  I've cleaned up the section concerning the Sachem Award, but if you were referring to recipients of the Sagamore of the Wabash, each entry has a reference verifying the information.  The list is not meant to be an exhaustive list of each and every recipient, but of those that can be reliably sourced.  Information regarding reliable sources can be found at WP:RS and WP:CITE.  However, if there was a television broadcast that can verify this, you can use either  or  to include a reference.  However, it would be best if there was an independent third party reference that can verify this. This is because if the list gets too long, non-notable entries (those without third-party sources) will be the first to be removed. - SudoGhost 20:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you, if you need any more help, I'll be around. - SudoGhost 03:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Ads on WP
Hi, SudoGhost. I just found a ad article Www.thebestvaporizer.org, which is exclusively promotional and is the creator's only edit. I think it violates WP:ADS and meets the speedy deletion criteria G11 so I tagged it for speedy deletion and posted a warning on its creator User:KingFisher9's talk page(using Twinkle). Did I do this right? Thank you. Zhaofeng Li (talk) 05:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I would say that, yes the article certainly does fall under G11. - SudoGhost 06:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So does it mean I'm right? If not, what's the best way to do this? Thanks for your help.Zhaofeng Li (talk) 06:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I would say so, and an admin will review it and delete it, or will contest it, at which point they will either explain why, or you can shoot them a message asking them why they don't agree. But from looking at the article, it looks like a pretty obvious G11. - SudoGhost 06:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot! Zhaofeng Li (talk) 06:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Image sur l'article Piano à queue
Salut, je ne voulais pas donner l'impression que je tentais de modifier la guerre, alors je voulais vous informer que j'ai changé l'image de retour à Piano à queue, et a laissé une raison sur la page de discussion. La raison pour laquelle je l'ai fait tout de suite c'est parce que l'image ne ​​se charge pas pour moi et pour d'autres personnes, à la fois là et sur ​​la page Commons. - SudoGhost (d) 13 février 2012 à 12:05 (CET)
 * Salut,
 * Je n'ai pas d'avis sur quelle image est la plus adaptée, mais il est étrange que l'image ne se charge pas, surtout sur Commons. Est-ce qu'on sait pourquoi ? Zandr4&#91;Kupopo ?&#93; 12:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Non, j'ai regardé dedans, mais il est étrange parce que parfois il se chargera de certains articles, mais pas les autres, alors il ne se chargera pas pour tout. Je vais continuer à chercher si, mais c'est pourquoi je l'ai repris tout de suite, parce que n'importe quel image est sur ​​l'article, au moins elle a besoin d'être celui qui se charge correctement. - SudoGhost 12:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

FYI
Hi, FYI 98.148.212.56 which you reverted is a puppet of User talk:Succursu, User talk:LoveforMary and several other account names and IPs. They never give up .... History2007 (talk) 11:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. Have you opened an SPI?  Outside of the two obvious edits that I reverted, that area of knowledge that the editor is editing in (Catholic?) is not one that I have any experience in. - SudoGhost 11:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Hobbit
Good spot, stuck it on the wrong link! GimliDotNet (talk) 21:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

 * Not a problem, glad to help. - SudoGhost 09:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Good catch!
Zenkai SPI. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 17:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

An indef block isn't the same as a ban
Hi I noticed this comment: An indef block isn't the same as a ban, that account wasn't a sockpuppet and I'm not sure of the difference. Can you elaborate? Typically, is it only the sockpuppets messages that are striked through and not the sockpuppet masters? IRWolfie- (talk) 14:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the user was indefinitely blocked, not banned, and indefinite blocks aren't infinite blocks; they can be removed. Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban, and the same applies to tagged sockpuppets of indefinitely blocked accounts, to the point that doing so is an exception to 3RR, but that doesn't extend to the indefinitely blocked account itself, especially edits made before being blocked.  That's the only reason I reverted it, because striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and the talk page guidelines allows for the removal or striking through of text from banned editors, but not of indefinitely blocked ones. - SudoGhost 18:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Cheers for the clarification. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

New Page Triage engagement strategy released
Hey guys!

I'm dropping you a note because you filled out the New Page Patrol survey, and indicated you'd be interested in being contacted about follow-up work. This is to notify you that we've finally released both the initial documentation about the project and also the engagement strategy, which sets out how we plan to work with the community on this. Please give both a read, and leave any comments or suggestions you have on the talkpage, on my talkpage, or in my inbox -.

It's awesome to finally get to start work on this! :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 02:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

GC N M
I think that you have been the most concise and logical speaker on this subject so would you mind being the one that takes this to AN/I if Keegan refuses to reverse his close? N o f o rmation Talk  00:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind words. I would like to leave AN/I as a last resort if at all possible.  I think that before it goes there, it would be best to formally ask the closing admin on their talk page to consider reversing their close, given the questionable comments the closing admin has made regarding the reasoning for the close.  I'll be away from the computer for at least the next couple of hours, but I'll review what has changed when I return and go from there. - SudoGhost 00:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, I would much rather this not go to AN/I as that is just going to attract more editors on both sides weighing in with their opinions on "myth" and I think at this point there's nothing to say that hasn't already been said. I don't think that Keegan is going to reverse his close though, he seems barely willing to talk about it.  N o f o rmation  Talk  01:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

please discuss your reversion.
talk:Domino theory 173.180.202.22 (talk) 03:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I reverted it because it inserted a POV into the article, rewriting neutral statements of a sequence of events into opinions of "victory" and "defeats". The United States withdrew from Vietnam, this is a neutral fact, but from what I was able to find from reliable sources online, a calling it a defeat, whether it was or not, appears to be a contentious point of view not universally held by reliable sources on the subject. - SudoGhost 03:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, ya, but should we also change the article Vietnam war's infobox? To be neutral we shouldn't keep the weasel word "victory," right? It says

Result	North Vietnamese and Viet Cong victory Withdrawal of American forces from Indochina Dissolution of the Republic of Vietnam Communist governments take power in South Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos 173.180.202.22 (talk) 04:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm failing to see where an issue lies. There is no claim of an American defeat in that infobox, and something is only a weasel word if it is a vague puffery statement not backed up by reliable sources, at least according to some experts on the matter. - SudoGhost 04:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

False Warning
The information from Android IS sourced- came from Steve Jobs himself from a quote about Google entering the smartphone business. Reverted. 206.180.101.2 (talk) 15:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If a source exists, then provide a source. However, an opinion from a competitor does not make "blatant ripoff" a neutral fact, especially for the first sentence of an article, which is meant to be a concise defintion.  The fact that it is the point of view of the CEO of a competing business is a pretty fair indication that it is not a neutral point of view.  It doesn't belong in the first sentence of the lede. - SudoGhost 15:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Linux Professional Institute Certification
Hi, Can you please explain why an expansion of the Learning Materials section with LPI Approved E-learning LPIC-1 courses and practice tests isn't allowed? There are more links to commercial learning material in that section like: LPI Linux Certification in a Nutshell and LPIC-1: Linux Professional Institute Certification Study Guide: (Exams 101 and 102), 2nd Edition Thanks 212.61.56.122 (talk) 15:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The link that was inserted appears to be a promotional link for a paid service, isn't allowed as an external link. I checked the other links and they too appear to fall under WP:ELNO, so I have removed the section. - SudoGhost 18:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearing that up. This seems to be the fairest solution. Perhaps a link to the lpi.org website with approved training materials is usefull (and allowed)?212.61.56.122 (talk) 08:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Reminder
This is a reminder about setting up a table in your sandbox that would include an image as the 6th parameter for List of professional cyclists who died during a race. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 03:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Just as a reminder, the examples can now be found here.. - SudoGhost 05:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

My birthday present..
Hi there SudoGhost, I just noticed that the SPI had a birthday present connotation to it which up till now I had missed. Thank-you for your hard work! (20040302 (talk) 13:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC))

There are a few possible additional 'sleepers' btw: EnvisionXing Dechog Sbgkaya All of whom added random edits to Madhyamaka over the last few months. (20040302 (talk))
 * It's certainly possible, but unless they make subsequent edits, I wouldn't be too worried about it. - SudoGhost 05:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

hello ghost person
now you don made me get un pro cuz you dont need to be correctin me imma correct you right quick ghost busta i got this you do yo stuff i do mines imma correct it when i fell like it but u don went and deleted so just rememba I GOT THIS!! (Juan.lyons2100 (talk) 02:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC))
 * If I feel there is an error introduced into an article, I will take the appropriate steps to correct this. This is not done to interfere with anyone's editing, but is done so that readers will have the most concise and useful article available to them.  If you'd like to test your editing without having it reverted, you're more than welcome to use the WP:Sandbox, or to create your own sandbox. - SudoGhost 08:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reverting my edit on Richard Dawkins article. It seems I know less than "what I think I know" in wikipedia :) Abhishikt (talk) 21:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

QR Code entries
Hello SudoGhost.

I have tried to contribute to the QR Code page several times, each time paring down the content and attempting to eliminate any bias for any person, business, or organization. However, you continue to delete the valuable content that I have submitted. This is unacceptable unless you POINT OUT what exactly is wrong with the submissions, and until you do so I will continue to submit the same, but constantly edited, portion to the QR Code wiki page.

Please identify what exactly it is that you deem inappropriate, unverifiable, advertising material, etc.

Thanks, Jesse — Preceding unsigned comment added by JesseYUNY (talk • contribs) 20:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * None of your edits have been to "pair down" information or remove bias, and on their face appear quite the opposite in fact. This includes inserting information about, among other things a trivial "largest QR code" record that is not reliably sourced.  However, I will point out why it is being reverted. This is plagued with issues.  For one, blogs are not reliable sources.  Second, you cannot state that "the first company to" do anything was Company XYZ, and then use Company XYZ's website as the "reference".  The same is the case with the "largest QR code" sentences.  They need to be reliably sourced. - SudoGhost 21:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! That is very helpful and I will endeavour to make the proper changes as you outlined. Also, "paired" is the improper verb used here, since "pair" is to identify two of something, while "pare" means to shorten, scale-down something.

Thanks. Please check on the QR code entry within the next 12 hours to see if it is acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JesseYUNY (talk • contribs) 21:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I would suggest against editing the article further, but to instead use the article's talk page to discuss the material and references, so that way your edits won't be reverted at all, please see WP:BRD. Thank you. - SudoGhost 21:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiSWTOR link
I was curious as to why you undid a recent addition to the article Star Wars: The Old Republic, a link in the external links section that led to a wiki resource for that game? -- 174.20.64.189 (talk) 14:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Any response? -- 174.20.64.189 (talk) 22:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Per Wikipedia's Links normally to be avoided, which is a guideline that says that open wikis should generally not be included. The link that was inserted didn't appear to have "a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors", and the article already contains links to two other wikis, I don't see any reason the article would benefit from yet another one.  If you disagree with this, you're more than welcome to discuss it on the article's talk page and explain why you feel the article would benefit from the links inclusion.  - SudoGhost 10:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, WikiSWTOR does currently lack a substantial active body of regular contributors. How many regular contributors is enough? The number working on that project is growing steadily.


 * As a quick aside, the article only contains a single link to a game wiki, not two. Wookieepedia is a general project that does not cover the content of the game itself. Additionally the link that you removed leads to a project that boasts more content, better support for that content, and greater project stability than the other gaming wiki link that you left in its place. Additionally, both Wookieepedia and the Star Wars: The Old Republic Wiki are part of a larger social networking site, Wikia, which also violates the Links normally to be avoided guidelines. Why did you not remove these links as well? -- 174.20.64.189 (talk) 15:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

It is my unbridled pleasure:

 * Thank you very much, it's greatly appreciated. May I ask specifically what this is for? :) - SudoGhost 10:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, Sudo, I lost my message somehow when I first awarded it. Gotta be for protecting something/fixing something. It is for something wonderful that you normally do, I know that!! So absentminded, I can't recall what the heck .... — Djathink imacowboy  15:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Help us develop better software!
Thanks to all of you for commenting on the NOINDEX RfC :). It's always great to be able to field questions like these to the community; it's genuinely the highlight of my work! The NOINDEX idea sprung from our New Page Triage discussion; we're developing a new patrolling interface for new articles, and we want your input like never before :). So if you haven't already seen it, please go there, take a look at the screenshots and mockups and ideas, and add any comments or suggestions you might have to the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

addition to steampunk
does a nomination for a award show enough proof to be put into a section under webseries? and possibly performance art? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steampunkaether (talk • contribs) 02:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it would depend on the notability of the award show itself. I think discussing this on the relevant talk page (Talk:Steampunk) would be more appropriate, that way other editors interested in the article can comment on it as well. - SudoGhost 10:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Whale
per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Don't stuff beans up your nose. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 21:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way, there's a large AN thread about things like this. We kinda took it over the top this year :| .--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I noticed, after the fact. I !voted on that MfD because it seemed like a harmless little joke, and most notably, not in article space.  C'est la vie. - SudoGhost 19:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

SMART Virus
Regarding this revision you undid: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=S.M.A.R.T.&oldid=485120242

There is actually a virus masquerading as SMART Repair[1] that cripples systems it is able to install itself on (while conveniently offering to repair the system with the purchase of a licence).

The first thing I did when I encountered this virus was to do a Google search for it, which yielded this Wikipedia page for a (different) valid product. Inexperienced users might be satisfied with this result and then place false trust in the application which eventually cons them into paying money to solve a problem that didn't exist in the first place.

Is there a way to put a note at the top that can warn people without negatively affecting the integrity of the page?

Also, thanks for contributing so much to Wikipedia! :)

[1] http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/virus-removal/remove-smart-hdd

202.89.185.197 (talk) 11:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit to Buddhism in Himachal Pradesh (References)
Hi, Could you tell me please why my addition to the References in the article Buddhism in Himachal Pradesh (The Buddhist Trail in Himachal Pradesh: A Travel Guide) was removed? Thanks. Parvatisharma2012 (talk) 05:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Because it wasn't a reference, it wasn't supporting any information, it was just sitting there as an external link, and doesn't serve any purpose as an external link either. - SudoGhost 19:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

WikiThanks
Thanks for your recent contributions! 66.87.2.2 (talk) 00:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

An AFD you participated in is at deletion review
You participated in Articles for deletion/Bridgette B (2nd nomination) so you should know it is now up for deletion review at Deletion_review/Log/2012_April_12.  D r e a m Focus  20:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

remove csd
I declined the speedy on Middle Income Trap. The doc it uses for reference is licensed as pd. -- SPhilbrick (Talk)  12:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Replied!
Replied to your post in Bhagavad Gita talk page! --Tito Dutta (Message) 18:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Replied again! Best, --Tito Dutta (Message) 05:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Question
Dear Sudo. Thanks for your post on the Katie Piper talk page. Just wondering why you sent me the caution regarding heated discussion on my talk page but did not post any messages on other editors' pages. It seems to me they were in great need of your advice. Please don't take offense at this, I am simple curious. Kind Regards, ProfJustice (talk) 19:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * From what I could tell they had already been given warnings on their talk page, that's all. - SudoGhost 20:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protection of Bodhidharma
I had the Bodhidharma article semi-protected again. I pushed for indefinite since it has been semi-protected for short periods numerous times in the past, but they only chose to do it for 2 months. I'm sure the biased edits will start again after the protection ends in July. I hope the admins will kick it up to indefinite next time. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 20:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Knights Templar Article Link
There is no 'soapbox' or 'advertising' going on, it is a link to an article on the subject. Please stop reversing my contribution. I also don't need any more derogatory and misleading posts on my talk page by you.Ndg.2010 (talk) 04:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The inserted link falls under WP:ELNO, and your edits give the appearance of editing the article to advertise the link. Instead of discussing it, you have been repeatedly hitting "undo". If you feel that the link is appropriate, then please discuss it on the article's talk page instead of edit warring to insert the link.  Thank you. - SudoGhost 04:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It does? Says who? I read the page and the article in no way falls under anything listed. It is an excellent article, perhaps you disagree with it because of some emotional attachment to the Knights Templar. Leave the link alone, you don't own the Knights Templar page.Ndg.2010 (talk) 04:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * ps it is YOU who are the one doing the 'edit warring'. YOU are the one who keeps deleting my contribution, with no legitimate justification given.Ndg.2010 (talk) 04:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no justification for inserting the link, and it appears to fail WP:ELNO #1, #4, #11, and also appears to only be marginally related to the article's subject. Satanism is not even mentioned in the Knights Templar Wikipedia article, yet seems to be what that link is primarily focused on; the Knights Templar and its relation to Satanism.  However, please note that you have been reported for edit warring, namely violation of the WP:3RR rule. - SudoGhost 04:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Sunyata
Any idea if this could be Thigle again? Joshua Jonathan (talk) 17:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The editor's speech patterns and editing behavior both seem to suggest that this new editor is not User:Thigle, it's much more likely to just be a new editor. - SudoGhost 03:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay. We'll see what's more going to happen. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 04:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Removal of C-SPAN links from various History of U.S. City pages
Hello - I saw that you reverted some external links I added. I made a few comments here: Talk:History of Knoxville, Tennessee specifically about Knoxville, but that could be generalized for the others. Do you mind checking out that Talk page when you have a spare minute, so that we can discuss further? Thanks KConWiki (talk) 02:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Removal of external links of ERPXE from PXE page.
Hello - You have removed a link from the PXE page. The link is about ERPXE project which is Completely dedicated to PXE environments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Preboot_Execution_Environment&action=history

This information is useful to any IT that needs to know about PXE. The project includes PXE information about over 100 OSs and Boot CDs.

Could you undo your last change? (the link was there for a few months before you have removed it and most of our references came from Wikipedia)

Thanx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravemaker (talk • contribs) 02:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The links you inserted across numerous articles fail WP:ELNO #12, #4, and in many cases #13 and #19 as well (essentially, they were links to open wikis that do not serve to reliably improve the article, and in many cases were are only very marginally related to the article's subject). The specific link you mention above does not meet the criteria of WP:ELYES; it doesn't belong on the article. - SudoGhost 07:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Shurangama Sutra
Some scholar said the Shurangama Sutra is created by chinese, you could see them at the chinese wiki.--Alfredo ougaowen (talk) 16:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A wikipedia article is not a reliable source, and "some scholar" is too vague to be worth writing without actually saying which scholars. - SudoGhost 16:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I just thinking that was a common sense in chinese buddish study so I added it. All the source I got is written in chinese.--Alfredo ougaowen (talk) 16:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

message to SUDO GUY
Will you stop changing the tangled dude. no body is using proper English on that section and you are not helping. i am an american and i know what i am doing by editing it in an effort to write normal english so do not undo it again. thanks take care bye — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xcherrybombx177 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * How was that not proper English? You have a lot of explaining to do. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It's being reverted because it's inappropriate for a number of reasons. There is a difference between "proper English" and appropriate prose for an encyclopedia article.  It introduces unsourced information (such as the email sentence), and reads like the back of a DVD case, not like a concise summary of sourced content. - SudoGhost 21:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It also appears to be a copyright violation of this source, which means you need to please stop hitting 'undo' and discuss it on the article's talk page. - SudoGhost 21:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Indigo children
The stupid raises it's ugly head once again. I tried removing the POV tag and was reverted - with further unnecessary tags added. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's that editor's MO. If they don't like something negative being said about the subject (even if its sourced), they'll try to reword it so that the statement is either minimized or made to seem as if it is a minority viewpoint held only by "skeptics", or they'll just remove it altogether.  If that doesn't work, they'll throw up a "disputed" or "pov" tag to achieve a similar effect of trying to minimilize and cast doubt on the negative aspects they don't like.  However, I will say that few editors are this helpful in making their intentions so clear. - SudoGhost 19:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The tags of OR in the body were actually good - the interview, which I managed to track down, didn't actually say indigos got their "powers" from reincarnation (the term used was "old soul", which could be interpreted that way). Since the whole topic is nonsense, the best approach in my mind is simply removing it.  Which I've done.  The whole thing is a colossal waste of time, ugh.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I must have missed the tags; looking at the history it looks like they were sandwiched in between a few other diffs.  I agree with removing the whole section of text, that solves a whole mess of issues.  Given the nature of the article, I think the article should be more stringent on using secondary sources from here on out, per WP:FRINGE and WP:PRIMARY. - SudoGhost 19:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

List of child prodigies
Hi. Do you consider for example this an unreliable source? Maksymilian Sielicki (talk) 15:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing there verifies anything that would indicate an individual being a child prodigy. - SudoGhost 15:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

NuttX RTOS
SudoGhost, you placed a COI tag on the article that states 'A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject'. What is your basis for this? If you are referring to me, I am not a NuttX developer nor do I have a direct connection to the NuttX project. If you are referring to my using the software, that is definitively not a close connection. If you have no evidence and made the tag based on pure speculation, please remove the tag. MicromintUSA (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The discussion board is the NuttX forum. Users post questions about the RTOS there. Posting on the forum does not imply a close connection with the the subject or its creator. If there is other evidence, please state it. Otherwise the COI should be removed immediately. MicromintUSA (talk) 20:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You use NuttX as a selling point for hardware, including it as a demo, how is this not a vested interest in the article's subject?  You appear to have a close connection; there was no article on this subject, which may or may not have reflected on customer decisions to purchase products.  This gives the apearance of a conflict of interest, especially when you then go to the NuttX discussion board and ask them to !vote to keep the article for you. - SudoGhost 21:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That is absolutely ridiculous and representative of your flawed logic. Our controllers use ARM processors and also run Linux. That does not imply we have a close connection to Linux nor do we have a vested interest in the Linux Foundation. The same goes with all other operating systems that work with ARM processors and run on our controllers. According to the ARM article in Wikipedia in 2011 there were over 15 billion ARM processors in devices all over the world so there are many many operating systems running on them that would also run on our controllers. You crossed the line by making baseless accusations. I demand that you immediately stop these false accusations made without any evidence whatsoever. MicromintUSA (talk) 21:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not an apt comparison by any means. It would be no different than specifically mentioning a specific minor linux distro as a selling point, creating an article for it and then canvassing the distro's discussion forums when the notability is questioned.  In that case, you would appear to have a close connection and vested interest in the linux distro.  It is not a "false accusation" to say that this gives the appearance of a conflict of interest. - SudoGhost 22:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That is yet another flawed argument and could even be regarded as an attempt to thwart free expression. Yearly I post in over a dozen forums. I have a right to an opinion on any topic whatsoever. That does not imply a close connection to a topic. You have absolutely no authority to block my right to free speech. MicromintUSA (talk) 22:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Uhm, yes it does imply a close connection. In fact, on Linux-related articles, I myself have a "close connection" to the subject simply because I'm a Windows fan. You don't have to have an official relation for it to be a "close" relation, per WP:COI.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Free expression? Block your right to free speech? I'm sorry, but that's the biggest stretch I've ever seen on this talk page; I'm honestly astounded.  Pointing out that a possible conflict of interest means that editors should review the article to make sure it adheres to WP:V and WP:NPOV is nothing more than exactly that.  I'm still scratching my head as to where this "block my right to free speech" bit came from. - SudoGhost 22:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've requested semi-protection to the AfD due to the massive meatpuppetry that's been occuring there. --Jasper Deng (talk) 22:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

ZenBuddhism Template
Hi. I changed the lay-out of the ZenBuddhism-template, but I don't know how to align the topics to the center of the column. Are you able to fix it? Joshua Jonathan (talk) 20:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look and fix it. I'm assuming you mean horizontally centered? - SudoGhost 20:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 20:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I slapped some tags in each collapsible field, but only as a temporary measure; it feels a bit sloppy to do it that way, so I'm going to do it a better way after I grab some food. - SudoGhost 23:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Joshua Jonathan (talk) 04:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Woody Harrelson
I received your message about the "Woody Harrelson" edit. I'm not trying to be argumentative, but what am I not understanding? What is it that you object to?

- Is it the addition of the fact that he plays the piano? (Does that broadcast episode, publicly available, not count as a “source”?)

- Or is it the part about his singing badly (where I commented that this is possibly for comic effect)? I’d be happy to re-write or remove those few words, if you feel it’s too subjective. (But it's clear in the context of the episode, that he sings badly. That's part of the point of the scene.)

However the fact remains: Woody Harrelson can play the piano. And this is shown clearly in the episode, which I have referenced accurately.

I am not an expert here on the policies or procedures, but I do frequently edit and contribute to articles. Thanks for your patience, and please don’t block me. I am not a vandal.

101.229.85.234 (talk) 04:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The issue is WP:V, among other things. He played the piano in an episode, but does this mean he actually plays the piano?  I know that sounds like an odd thing to ask, but odder things have been staged before.  The content needs an inline reliable source supporting it, meaning that if you say he plays the piano, you need to provide a reliable source that specifically says he plays the piano, the fact that his character did it on an episode doesn't show this.  For the "His singing is not good" part, that is an objective opinion, there may be someone that thinks it sounds good for whatever reason.  It may be true that the intention was to sing badly, but the article cannot say his singing is not good anymore than it can say he is the best actor ever.  These are opinions at best, not facts. - SudoGhost 04:11, 19 May 2012 (UTC)



(I clicked "edit" to reply here. Is this right?)

I am a pianist. I can tell you, based on that footage, that Harrelson plays the piano himself. His body movements correspond, and the keys he plays on that piano exactly match the audio. I have perfect pitch, and can even tell you that he's playing in E minor, G major, and A major. It is not merely his character who plays the piano; there is no doubt whatever that Harrelson himself is playing, and that the audio on the soundtrack is not a later overdub. I understand entirely what you mean: actors frequently mime badly playing an instrument (it's usually piano or guitar), when it's patently clear to anyone, let alone someone who can really play, that it's just miming. But this is not the case here. The aural/visual evidence is right there in the episode. (You may say that's not a proper source, but in that case, I would contend, neither is a published book: writers can lie or be wrong, etc.) The evidence is there, for those who can understand it. My understanding of the music in that episode is no less than your understanding of any given printed source.

So, if you don't like the parts about his singing, I can remove that. How about I re-write the sentence, and re-post it the edit? Would you be ok with that? It's an interesting aspect of Harrelson's ability which doesn't appear anywhere else online, and perhaps this old "Cheers" episode may be the only filmed evidence of it. (I don't know - I'm not an especial Harrelson fan, and certainly haven't watched his entire oeuvre. I just noticed it in that episode - being a pianist myself - and thought it was interesting.)  Most actors can't play their musical parts themselves (there are so many examples, but a few include: Geoffrey Rush in "Shine", Adrien Brody in "The Pianist", and Paul Newman in "The Competition"), so it's interesting to see an actor who can. Clint Eastwood plays jazz piano very well, but that's well-known. Another example of an actor who could play was Clifton Webb, as shown in "Mr Belvedere Goes to College" (1949). (I mean to check if that’s online actually, but haven't done so yet. He plays in D minor, in that film, I can tell you.)

101.229.85.234 (talk) 07:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, we can't take your word for it, it has to be verified by a reliable source of some kind, because readers need to be able to verify for themselves that what you're saying it true by checking the source that supports the information. - SudoGhost 07:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I still don't understand. The informtion is verified at a reliable published source (i.e. the episode itself), so readers can verify it there for themselves. What am I not understanding about your definition of 'verifiable'?

Have you actually seen the video yourself?

[1] If not, is it fair to reject evidence without having examined it?

[2] If you have seen it, then clearly (sorry) you lack the ability to understand it. So is it fair to reject evidence based on your inability to understand the source? (Yes, understanding music may be a more rarified ability than understanding English; but to extend this idea logically, surely in that case a user could reject another user's verifiable printed English source, on the grounds that he can't read English or by claiming that the source may have been faked [or overdubbed in the case of this music question]?)

[3] And if you say that you don't have the video available, so you can't appraise it, is that not the same as my not having a book to hand, that may be cited as a reference in a bibliography?

Further, I notice in the "Legal Issues" section in this same article, there is a comparable paragraph referring to a video that "appeared to show" Harrelson doing something. Why has this not been removed? Or is it therefore acceptable if I re-write the piano section to say that Cheers "appears to show" Harrelson playing the piano? (But this would, however, be utterly ridiculous, since it does show him playing the piano, not merely appearing to play.) (To extend this idea, one could say, for example, that the film Zombieland "appears to show" Harrelson shooting large numbers of people dead.  Of course he doesn't actually shoot people dead, but the film does appear to show it.)

I offered to remove the part about singing, and leave only the informtion about the piano playing, but you didn't respond to that. If I do this, will that be acceptable to you? I'm just trying to understand what distinctions you make here between what you allow and not, and how it must be worded. It's not consistent or logical.

(I just checked the preview of this post. My IP address seems to have changed - I don't know why - but it's still me.)

114.86.227.2 (talk) 03:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Missing one
You issued warning to 2 editors for edit warring. I think you missed one (who I have had the same type of altercations with previously, he stops at 2 reverts but often act as part of a group in edit wars):  --Useerup (talk) 06:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, I honestly thought I was looking at a back and forth between only two users, but looking at the page history I have no idea how I missed that. Seems resolved in its own way; the image the IP was shooting for was deleted under G7, which sits with me kind of funny, considering who the author was.  I can't view the image anymore though so maybe it's not what it looks like, but it seems like an odd way to stop an edit war. - SudoGhost 06:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Green Lantern's Powers and Abilities
First I The Multiverse (talk) 01:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC) would like to say Green Lantern can't create Kriptonite and many powers on there are very Questionable. Second off I did give a reason for deleting what I did.
 * It did not say "create Kryptonite", it said "simulated wavelengths, such as kryptonite". They aren't one in the same, and the source is not "wrong", Kyle Rayner's ring simulated the effects of kryptonite in that comic. - SudoGhost 01:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I The Multiverse (talk) 01:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC) checked out that comic and did not see where it say's/shows that, and thats not the only thing I siad was wrong I also siad refs need to be put down for some powers plus some are questionable.

Please respond to my post because I don’t understand why you can’t see that some things there are questionable, and unverified. The Multiverse (talk) 02:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Edits to Green Tara
SudoGhost, please more specific. You have deleted several links. The only one that seems to be self-promoting is the first one of the ones you deleted: Tārā: Buddhist Goddess in Green and White - from ReligionFacts.com. Even that one offers some valuable info. I am researching Green Tara and all of those links are helpful! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.230.6.187 (talk) 22:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The links all fail WP:ELNO for one or more reasons. Wikipedia articles are not meant to be a collection of links, and sites such as open wikis are specifically mentioned as links to be avoided. Essentially, the links have to have a good reason to be placed in an external links section, or else it doesn't belong in the article, and if they run afoul of ELNO, then they typically don't belong in an article. User:SudoGhost (Away) 23:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

hello
can you take a look at the article Adal Sultanate and Talk:Adal Sultanate the user Middayexpress is reverting work that is sourced and misrepresenting them also he wont accept the fact that the capital of this sultanate was first Dakar even though i have given him many sources and the article itself says so already. Baboon43 (talk) 00:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The best thing to do would probably be to bring this up at WP:RSN or to open a WP:RFC. - SudoGhost 00:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Notability: NuttX RTOS
Hi SudoGhost, I know you've been very active in the AfD discussion for the NuttX_RTOS article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/NuttX_RTOS). Since time is running out for that AfD, I thought on asking you to check my last changes and comments to the article regarding notability, at the bottom of the AfD talk page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpcarballo (talk • contribs) 13:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Please stop editing my addition or undoing!
Look, I just want to add these. I have these from my own knowledge and everyone keeps wanting me to add a source. And you keep going on and deleting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zach4997 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Your own knowledge is not a sufficiently reliable source.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You can't "just add them", you have to add a source, your personal knowledge is not sufficient, because readers need to be able to verify the content for themselves with reliable sources. If you don't add a reliable source, any editor can remove the content, adding it back without reliable sources is edit warring, and if you continue, you will be reported and likely blocked for edit warring, so instead of reinserting the content, please discuss it on the talk page or find a reliable source. - SudoGhost 00:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Fine then, go ahead and report me so I can get removed so I can just stop expanding this encyclopedia that "Everyone can edit". I had sources and i guess ill just keep my knowledge to myself. And for someone that has nothing to do except reject someone elses addition on a small freaking article then ill just not add anything. I kind of wanted to share those two things on 42 (number) because im fascinated by the occurrences of it. And I guess I cant share that. Because i thought it was cool. And Im only what 15? And Im a noob and have a little bit of a clue of what im doing. So Ill just stop. Since im causing so much trouble. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zach4997 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Michael de la Force
Could you advise how to bring this in line with community standards?

There are some reference photographs stored at: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Lmpartners

With much appreciation. Lmpartners (talk) 01:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately images uploaded to Commons cannot be used as reliable sources, because there is nothing to verify the authenticity of the image; reliable sources should be used instead. Looking at the article, it doesn't appear to meet the notability requirements, notably WP:GNG and/or WP:BIO, and without reliable sources that can satisfy these requirements, it's likely the article will be discussed at Articles for Deletion, where the notability of the subject would be discussed, the article would then be kept or deleted as appropriate.  Identifying reliable sources should give you an idea of what constitutes a reliable source, and you can use either Reliable sources/Noticeboard or ask myself or other editors if a particular source is reliable.  For example, Wikipedia consensus has determined that IMDB is generally not a reliable source, and the paper.li reference appears to be a primary self-published source, and neither of these references help establish any notability for the article's subject. - SudoGhost 03:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

May 2012
Thanks for your tips, mate. ~> Arpabone (talk) 11:46, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Baburam and Terrorism
You are advised not to remove sourced points related to Baburam and his terrorist background. Please make wikipedia aritcles complete by writing about the entire background of a subject rather than by trying to be selective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack of All, Master of None (talk • contribs) 20:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, so long as your personal advisement runs afoul of WP:TERRORIST, it will not be heeded. There is a discussion on the article's talk page.  In light of both WP:TERRORIST and WP:BRD, I suggest you discuss it there before reinserting the edit; the material involves a living person, and unless the issues with the edit are resolved the edit will be reverted for this reason. - SudoGhost 01:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Great American Wiknic for Atlanta in June
Hi SudoGhost. I would like to invite you to help plan the Atlanta edition of the Great American Wiknic this June (you could update Meetup/Atlanta) :) Also, please confirm any preliminary details at Wiknic.--Pharos (talk) 15:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Hakuun Yasutani
Hi SudoGhost. Could you take a look at Hakuun Yasutani? Joshua Jonathan (talk) 08:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a user who keeps blanketing a critical section, without any edit-summary. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 15:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it looks like I missed this section somehow; I only just now noticed it. Looking at this edit, I can see why someone would remove it, calling someone's political views "extreme" in that way does suggest a particular point of view.  Also, statements like "the tone of his comments frequently rose to the level of vitriol" don't have any sources directly supporting it that I can see.  I'm not saying removing it was the best way to handle it, but the section could certainly be rewritten slightly in a more neutral way, removing what isn't supported by reliable sources.  But then again, I have no prior knowledge of this article's subject, other than what I'm reading right now, but as its worded it seems to suggest a particular point of view, which would perhaps need additional reliable sources to verify that this point of view is widely held. - SudoGhost 15:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi SudoGhost. We've solved the problem. Halfmonk didin't know about edit summaries, and I have considerably changed the contents and tone. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 03:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Kashmir Conflict
Please notice I have already discussed the edit on talk page and provided reliable citations. ThanksTruth4all (talk) 13:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC) The edit has been discussed in talk page with including Darkness Shines and was still deleted by Darkness Shines citing inaccurate although the sources are verifiable and correct.Truth4all (talk) 14:04, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: Lusitanic and User Y26Z3
Dear SudoGhost, I am bringing the matter between Y26Z3 and Goodsdrew to admin's noticeboard due to both of them breaking the 3RR, but I am with Goodsdrew on this as he was removing poorly-referenced content and provision in the 3RR is given for such reverts to be made. Please also look at the talkpage section and do make a comment there to explain to Y26Z3 regarding your points made in your revert edit description. Regards, Optakeover  (Talk)   00:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Just checked edit warring section of admin's noticeboard, Goodsdrew has already made a report. I'll add to it. Optakeover  (Talk)   00:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've left a comment on the talk page. The editor has made nine reverts on that article in the past 24 hours, in addition to the four on the other article, that's a bit much. - SudoGhost 00:55, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have made my comment at . Please do take a look at it and if required, clarify any information as required. Thank you for your help. Optakeover  (Talk)   01:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the link regarding what is and what is not vandalism. I'm going to look further into what exactly it is called. However, as a person with portuguese descent, I am offended by the reference to a fake term called "Lusitanic" and it needs to be stated that it is not in any dictionary or encyclopedia. I look down on the editors of Wikipedia severely for providing a fake term and I will be letting others in my community know of this. Thank you again for the link to what is and what is not vandalism, (Y26Z3 (talk) 04:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC))
 * Y26Z3, we don't care what you think, what your community thinks, or what the Portuguese thinks. We don't care if it's your parents who said it (no offence), or that the President of Portugal said it. So long as you can't give me a concrete source which says word for word that 'Lusitanic' is not a recognised, we will not accept that piece of information.
 * Sudoghost, the incident has been resolved with the blocking of both editors for 48 hours because they both really did revert-warred. Hah. Optakeover  (Talk)   10:16, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hah. (Y26Z3 (talk) 06:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC))

Did I not tell you about my community? (Y26Z3 (talk) 19:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC))

Would you mind properly getting rid of the vandalism?
The name of the band is "30 Seconds to Mars", not "40", so the page needs to be moved back to that title. I tried it, but it won't let me •  GunMetal Angel   22:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it wouldn't let me move it for some reason, but Earwig got it. - SudoGhost 22:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, I just noticed. I guess you changed "Uranus" to "Mars" to partially get rid of the vandalism •  GunMetal Angel   22:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, he made quite a mess, moving a few dozen pages, so there's quite a bit of moving that had to be done. - SudoGhost 22:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

42
I received this message:

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to 42 (number).

The Wikipedia definition for "reliable source" is: The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings:

the piece of work itself (the article, book), the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), and the publisher of the work

I represent ALL three of those provisions and the citation was a page from the ACTUAL published work. I am not sure how the referenced "edit war" came about.

Meanwhile, a large majority of that page is uncited, yet remains. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.71.113 (talk) 23:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * a tribute to something notable does not inherently make that tribute notable. There were way too many trivial entries on that article, so it was trimmed down to those that are notable in some way; simply being verifiable isn't sufficient, otherwise there would be literally millions of entries that would belong there.  Therefore the non-notable entries were removed.  The entry in question was a trivial mention in a non-notable book, unless one or more independent sources can be used to show otherwise. - SudoGhost 10:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Saban troll
Bell Canada has told me they have yet again enacted their Acceptable Use Policy against this individual. But they tell me this every time he edits.— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 20:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Schengen
Hi, there is no argument against my change on Schengen. The guy who started the revert war, I messaged him to understand his concerns, although he reads my comments, he doesn't respond. What should I do now?--Camoka4 (talk) 22:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please tell me you're kidding. You've made seven reverts today, why would you have to do that if there was no disagreement about the edit? (and yes, it's painfully obvious that the you are the IP editor, given that you've edited from the same area before). What you should do, is stop reverting, and discuss.  There is an ongoing discussion on the talk page, you need to stop and get a consensus for your changes instead of edit warring. - SudoGhost 23:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, L.tak (the person who has trouble with my edit) is non-responsive although he reads my messages on his talk page. how can I find a consensus when the other side has no argument and is non-responsive? --Camoka4 (talk) 23:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The talk page has an ongoing discussion with several editors, L.tak is not the only editor that disagrees with your edit. L.tak's participation is not required, but that doesn't make the discussion on the talk page null, consensus is still required, and from what I'm seeing on the talk page, the consensus is against your edit. - SudoGhost 23:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

History of the Internet
Hi SudoGhost, got yr msg on my talk pg re my edit to the History of the Internet article. I posted a comment about the claim i removed on the talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:History_of_the_Internet#Why_was_content_.5Bcontaining_alleged_stats_on_.25_share_of_info_transmitted_via_the_Internet.5D_deleted.3F The claim is not supported by the cited pgs in the cited source - and I posted a link to a UCSD paper which contradicts that claim. I came to that article looking for exactly that kind of info, so if the original cited source has that info on some other pages, I hope you/someone will update the History of the Internet article asap. But as it stands reverted, the claim in the article is unsupported. Gorkelobb (talk) 02:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't see the talk page explanation, only the lack of edit summary preceding it; I've reverted the edit. - SudoGhost 19:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Aquarians Gospel link
Friend, If you look at the link added to the Wikipedia article on the Aquarian Gospel, I think you will agree that it conforms for the standards set forth here in the third section:

"What can normally be linked

1. Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any. See Official links below. 2. An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a legally distributed copy of the work, so long as none of the Restrictions on linking and Links normally to be avoided criteria apply. 3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues,[2] amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons."

I think you will find the link both relevant to the article and a useful addition to the reader's knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarakananda (talk • contribs)
 * I did review the website, and I strongly disagree. It is only marginally relevant to the article, and you've been inserting this same website across multiple articles, seemingly to promote the website as opposed to improving Wikipedia.  Please be aware that continuing to add spam external links is vandalism, and please discuss the links before reinserting them.  Thank you. - SudoGhost 03:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Out of date URLs
Friend, I apologize if my external site postings have violated current Wikipedia protocol. I have not posted much since when I joined Wikipedia in 2004, when things were not so stringent.

I would like your opinion on how to deal with out-of-date links, that is, ones whose url has changed. I would like to change them to their current url, as I have done with a few recently. But due to your reaction, I hesitate to act lest it mistakenly be seen as an improper action. What are your thoughts on how to go about this?

Tarakananda (talk) 21:11, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see the section you posted above. - SudoGhost 15:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * This is not about adding links, but updating years-old links. What are your thoughts? Tarakananda — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.161.123.91 (talk) 02:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The links still don't belong for the reasons given above. I didn't revert them back to the out of date version, they were removed altogether. - SudoGhost 02:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I am speaking of other years-old links. How should I deal with them? 75.161.123.91 (talk) 03:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Best response to external link spam?
Thank you for welcoming me to Wikipedia; you made me crave chocolate chip cookies. :) Since you offered yourself as a resource to answer questions, I'm going to take advantage of your kindness. I removed an advertising link from the Tuxedo article by User:Hellomotorr, who hasn't made edits on any other page. I looked at WP:VANDAL and, according to the "Spam external linking" section, this behavior doesn't count as vandalism unless the activity continues after a warning. Because I'm still new, though, I don't feel qualified to issue warnings yet. Until I feel comfortable doing something like this myself, what is the best way to request assistance in addressing this situation? Calathea (talk) 23:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The best thing to do in that situation would be to place or  on the editor's talk page.  If they continue to insert promotional links, it'd be best to then try to discuss it with them, asking them to discuss it on the article's talk page.  If they continue further, I'd say then place  or  on the editor's talk page.  If they continue after a uw-spam3 warning, it'd very likely be considered vandalism, and you could report them to WP:AIV.  Of course, each case would vary, but this would be a basic and general way to go about doing it, and actual discussion goes a long way.  Hope this helps. - SudoGhost 23:49, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Aha! Of course there are pre-existing templates, which makes things a lot easier. I see you've already placed a note on the editor's talk page; hopefully that's enough to prevent this behavior from recurring. I now feel better equipped to handle a similar situation in the future. Thanks a bunch! Calathea (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Linux Distribution
The article clearly says "A Linux distribution is a member of the family of Unix-like operating systems built on top of the Linux kernel" and ANDROID IS!!!! So you are contradicting the article if you say Android is not a Linux Distro!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcms2330 (talk • contribs) 09:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying Android is not a Linux distribution, reliable sources are. According to this source: "Although the platform built on top of the Linux kernel, according to Google Engineer Patrick Brady, it is not a Linux distribution. It does not support the X-windowing system nor does it use the standard Linux libraries including the Gnu C Library. In fact, the C language is not even officially supported."


 * and Ars Technica: "Although Android is built on top of the Linux kernel, the platform has very little in common with the conventional desktop Linux stack. In fact, during a presentation at the Google IO conference, Google engineer Patrick Brady stated unambiguously that Android is not Linux."


 * Reliable sources, including individuals that created Android, say it is not a Linux distribution. Therefore unless you can provide some compelling evidence to the contrary, it doesn't belong per WP:BURDEN. - SudoGhost 14:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

CDIA edit
Hello - earlier today you removed an edit I had posted to the CDIA+ section of CompTIA's page within one hour of me posting it. I had added a comment about the word Architect in the designation was originally ArchiTech. You cited BURDEN as the reason. I suppose I could just go home and find the little card they sent me when I got the certification in 2000 and then scan it in for you.... or maybe you could just do a Google search on the exact phrase: Certified Document Imaging ArchiTech  and look at the first hit. I will leave it to you to undo your removal since I think that is your responsibility for removing something you likely know nothing about :) Bclamanwiki (talk) 18:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, it isn't my responsibility, the onus is on you. I would have been glad to, but since I apparently "likely know nothing about it", you can do it yourself.  Telling someone they "likely know nothing about" a subject is incivil and doesn't exactly make anyone want to jump up and do what you request.  But before you reinsert the material, you may want to read Identifying reliable sources, because scanning a card isn't considered a reliable source. - SudoGhost 18:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * My apologies for being a little ornery this afternoon but it is a very specialized subject and that is an old term. I wasn't aware that citations were needed for every description on wiki ...  however, I have found a reference to it that doesn't seem to be trying to specifically sell an exam for it so I will undo the removal but add the cite.  Thanks.

Bclamanwiki (talk) 19:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Ankheg (AfD)
Hi ! As you participated in Articles for deletion/Afanc (Dungeons & Dragons), I thought you might be interested in Articles for deletion/Ankheg (2nd nomination), another D&D monster.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * While I have commented at that AfD, please see Canvassing. I notcied that you only made these comments at the user pages of editor's that !voted delete at Articles for deletion/Afanc (Dungeons & Dragons), which strikes me as very inappropriate.  Because of this, I've made a comment at the AfD openly directing all of the users to the second AfD's discussion, in the future that would probably be the best way to make other editors aware of a related AfD discussion, to avoid any appearance of canvassing. - SudoGhost 21:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that, it is probably a better way to make the AfD visible to future !voters (even though individual notifications are not prohibited by WP:CAN), but all the other !voters in Afanc had already !voted in Ankheg, it just happened that, at the time I write, those who had not were delete !voters, but this was unrelated to the notifications, I would have equally notified keep !voters who had not already contributed to the Ankheg AfD.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your support at Scottywong's page. It seems we're heading toward a DRV, then. I can't open it right now but I will certainly take care of it in a few hours or tomorrow...Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

An apology
Hello, SudoGhost. I apologize for my response to the comments you left on my talk page. It had not even crossed my mind that you might take it seriously. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 08:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's okay, it just threw me off because I was just trying to help by clearing up the misunderstanding the IP had with your edit. Even though we had a disagreement in November and my comments may come across as brazen from time to time, I'm really not a bad guy (at least I try not to be), I promise. - SudoGhost 02:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Blocking?
Hi SudoGhost. Do you know what to do with this? Greetings, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 07:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, that page's recent history is a mess. However, your edits appear to be well sourced, and the editor (who is now for sockpuppetry and edit warring) appears to be trying to remove any negative information about the article's subject, even if it is sourced information.   Their edits, rather than yours, seem to be the WP:NPOV issue, and is way too promotional; there's no way that kind of promotional tone should be in an article.  However, other editors have stepped in, and it seems to be resolved, at least for now. - SudoGhost 20:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

10 Out of 10
"Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable."

10 Out of 10 ranked in the top 10 on Korea's music charts and was the band's first song / single. I'll look for better sources but I can assure you it's notable. CaseyPenk (talk) 02:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The article is still a stub, and unless there's more sources that can expand the article, it should be redirected to the artist per WP:NSONG, that's why it was tagged. - SudoGhost 02:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for helping to resolve the issue with Y26Z3, and the Lusitanic article. You have gone out of the way as a patroller, and for me I became too hot on it and I didn't want to dwell on the problem. Just revisited Wikipedia and saw the resolution. Thank you for all your help! Optakeover (Talk)   19:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the barn star
Thank you for the barn star, it's much appreciated. — Alan De Smet | Talk 01:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Govind Kumar Singh
We meet again at Govind Kumar Singh which, if memory serves, is where we first met as a consequence of the User:Vermapriya1986 sockfarm etc around 15 months ago! I have warned and advised the new user but I had also previously opened a case at SPI concerning them. It seems fairly loud quacking to me - see Sockpuppet_investigations/Vermapriya1986. Alas, there is quite a backlog at SPI and so it is taking longer to sort out than I would usually anticipate. - Sitush (talk) 12:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've been keeping an eye on the whole thing. I was suspicious that the user was User:Vermapriya1986, but the way they signed their name pretty much removed any doubt in my mind; I'd be extremely surprised if it wasn't the same user. - SudoGhost 23:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Kongregate page
Greetings, SudoGhost. I believe you were the person who reverted my edits to the Kongregate page last time as well. I understand how the edits I made today were not notable, so I won't argue about that. However, I do not agree that my edits to the page back in November were "too detailed." There are pages for other online gaming sites that have an almost unnecessary degree of detail, a prominent example being Newgrounds. This may seem pointless to debate now because it's been eight months, but I did put a rather large amount of effort and research into revamping that page. My main point is that I don't see why the edits can't stay. TheLurkerMan (talk) 11:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Because it's WP:UNDUE to place that much focus on something that isn't covered by a single third-party source. That, and as articles should be primarily based on third-party sources, that level of detail in an article without third-party sources backing it up removes the article's focus on what reliable sources say, which runs afoul of WP:V. - SudoGhost 11:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newgrounds TheLurkerMan (talk) 11:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm discussing the Kongregate article, not some other article. There are almost 4 million articles on the English Wikipedia, invariably we're going to run across articles that have issues of some kind.  That just means we need to fix those issues, not introduce more; I haven't been watching that article, but if you have issues with it discuss it on that article's talk page. - SudoGhost 12:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Atlanta Wiknic Sat June 30
Be there as detailed at Meetup/Atlanta/Atlanta 3, or be unencyclopedic!--Pharos (talk) 19:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for cleaning out the trash on my talk page. Lady of  Shalott  04:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Glad to help. :) - SudoGhost 18:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Linux Mint
Concerning the edit you undid... Wikipedia relies on reliable sources, so if an editor believes a source is unreliable then they certainly ought to remove it or at least discuss its removal. And if it's not for an editor to decide, then who does decide it? Do we need sources to verify that another source is unreliable? CodeCat (talk) 18:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Because he removed the edit because he felt DistroWatch is an unreliable source, but DistroWatch isn't being used as the source. The PCWorld et al references discuss Linux Mint on DistroWatch.  Those are reliable sources.  DistroWatch isn't being used to support the information that was removed, but rather DistroWatch is the subject of the content, and reliable sources are being used to support that information. - SudoGhost 18:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * So he didn't remove content that was sourced to DistroWatch, but content that was sourced to other sites that were in turn sourced to DistroWatch? No wonder I was confused... CodeCat (talk) 19:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, looking at my edit summary, it was a little too vague, I can see why there would be confusion there. What I meant to say is that since multiple reliable sources have written entire articles concerning Linux Mint's ranking on DistroWatch, those reliable sources give the content weight, and makes the content relevant to the article.  Concerns that DistroWatch is unreliable is immaterial to that (why wouldn't DistroWatch be a reliable source for page rankings on DistroWatch?)  DistroWatch may or may not be unreliable, but that's not what is being used as a reliable source there.  - SudoGhost 19:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Y26Z3 Sockpuppet investigation
Since you had involvement in the blocking of user Y26Z3 because of his edits at Lusitanic, I thought you'd be interested to know that I believe he has created a new sockpuppet through which he is beginning to make similar edits and is again lobbying for the deletion of Lusitanic. The sockpuppet investigation I started against him is here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Y26Z3 Goodsdrew (talk) 17:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for letting me know, looks like they were blocked and taken care of, and I reverted some of their edits. - SudoGhost 20:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

ZarilSake
Sorry about that ... I got confused about the timezones reflected by the timestamps. He's blocked now. Daniel Case (talk) 03:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's all good, I'm certainly not going to fault someone taking the time to handle AIV. :) - SudoGhost 03:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if you were informed
Hi, not sure if anyone notified you of: Wikiquette_assistance (not sure how you are involved though). IRWolfie- (talk) 22:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Blue eyes detail
SudoGhost, I appreciated your views on this matter, and your contributions to the thread. All the best. Tengu800 01:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

July 2012
Hello, I got your message about canvassing. Sorry, I'm a new user and did not know it was not allowed. Thank your for informing me. FonsScientiae (talk) 10:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Why Did you Remove ICEpdf from Article: List_of_PDF_software? - July 2012
SudoGhost, I noticed you removed "ICEpdf" from the mentioned article for "non-notable software" reasons. This doesn't make sense to me since the article is simply listing PDF software libraries on the market. Please explain why a list of software should only contain notable or third-party sourced software?

"21:34, 27 June 2012‎ SudoGhost (talk | contribs)‎ . . (21,183 bytes) (-288)‎ . . (Reverted to revision 498762276 by DumbBOT: Rv non-notable software, needs third-party sources; article has none either." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fnasser007 (talk • contribs)
 * Because the consensus is that software on that list needs to be notable per Wikipedia's notability guidelines. If you'll notice, each entry in that list has (or should have) its own article.  If you disagree with this consensus, you're welcome to discuss it on the article's talk page, but short of a new consensus it doesn't belong on the article.  Your software specifically was deleted via AfD; there's a consensus that it isn't notable software per Wikipedia's guidelines, so it doesn't belong on an article that requires notability in order to be listed in the list. - SudoGhost 20:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of content in Bodhidharma
hello sudo ghost.please try to refrain from deletion of edited contents to the article on 'bodhidharma'.i am trying to reveal the knowledge i can get of the article from sources which i had revealed.It was a minor edit and did not see the deletion of your proposed content and you should show some consideration before deleting the context.i hope you value the knowledge known by others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hari147 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Your edit was reverted because it has been discussed extensively on the talk page, and sources differ on where Bodhidharma was from, so the consensus on the talk page is that we do not conclusively say that he was from a particular place, but rather discuss the differing views in the article itself. There is no scholarly consensus on his origin, so the article must reflect this. - SudoGhost 14:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

First of all,i would like to mention that i did not took notice of the talk page.But what i have came across in various sources and articles are facts of bodhidharma originating from southern India and being a former king before becoming a buddhist monk and travelling to china.It seemed to me as injust to not include my known knowledge of him into the article as i was browsing through random articles and happen to come across this.However,i do take regard on differing views and sources of people and it can also be understandable that there are not valid sources to prove that bodhidharmar had originated in specific parts or countries and to use only available sources that have knowledge of this particular subject.It seems logical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hari147 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Darcy Burner
hello, i apologize if I am not responding correctly with wikipedia.com. I received a noticed about an edit warning about a page regarding Darcy Burner http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Darcy_Burner&action=history. I added detail, which has legitimate resources, to comments that she has made. Specifically: At a women's conference in Rhode Island in early June 2012, Burner was a keynote speaker who asked the women in attendance if they had had an abortion and were willing to let it be known. She is quoted as having said, "If you are a woman in this room who has had an abortion and is willing to come out about it, please stand up.”[2] Later she explained, "The people who don’t want them to be able to stand up, who don’t want people to stand with them, are the people who are trying to shame them into silence and it’s long past time we stopped giving into them.”[2] She further said during the Keynote "People think they don't know women who've had abortions, when in fact their mothers or their sisters or their co-workers or their friends often have. Women being able to come out of the closet and being able to say 'I've had an abortion' would change people's view of what it meant." [3]

I have references to her comments, and believe this to be within wikipedia's guidelines. However, a couple (few) people seem to want to delete this portion. I believe it is worthwhile to include this information on wikipedia, as it is factual and accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chadbye (talk • contribs) 04:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * While I don't really have an opinion about the content itself one way or the other, it would be best to use the article's talk page to discuss the changes instead of hitting 'Undo'; it may be that there's just a misunderstanding somewhere about why the content is being added/removed, which is something that a discussion would help solve. Hitting 'Undo' without explaining why on the talk page doesn't typically solve anything, and repeatedly doing so may end up with one or more editors being temporarily blocked to prevent the back-and-forth and give the article some stability.  I would highly advise discussing it on the talk page to try to resolve any disagreement about the content of the article.  If you have any questions about anything Wikipedia-related, I'll be glad to help if I can. - SudoGhost 05:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Genesis creation narrative
A new debate has started over whether it is the or just one of the creation narratives. Please add your voice. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm watching the page, but it looks like the situation is being resolved. - SudoGhost 15:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Bitcoin
If you want to retain the tag saying that the article on Bitcoin "may be too technical for most readers to understand" please start a discussion on Talk:Bitcoin, that way the rest of us will understand why you think it may be too technical. You never know, if we understood the problem (if there is a problem), one of us might fix it.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Spamming
I have just received a warning about spamming from SudoGhost. I'm not sure if this is the proper way to reply but it's the only one I could find. I don't know why you should consider my links to be spam. They are absolutely relevant to the subject, providing a zoological aspect to the description of a species or dog breed. The website at www.skullsite.co.uk was created for this specific purpose and has no commercial purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rnorve (talk • contribs) 18:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The commerciality of the website isn't the issue; you were inserting this link across dozens of articles, which were then removed per WP:LINKSPAM. Looking at your talk page this isn't the first time you were warned about adding external links to multiple articles.  If you feel the links are beneficial, please discuss the link on the each article's talk page and see if other editors agree with the addition first, but adding the link en masse across dozens of pages gives the appearance of trying to promote the website (whether commerical or not). - SudoGhost 18:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Question
Hi, I get the strong feeling you and I have interacted in the past when you edited under a different name here. Is that the case? Hobit (talk) 02:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have never edited under any other account, with the exception of my away account, which has only been used once to answer a question on my talk page while I was not at home. If you feel otherwise, you're welcome to open a WP:SPI on the matter and determine that for yourself (I can understand not taking someone's word at that, so if you feel that question would better be answered by a sockpuppet investigation, you're welcome to ascertain your answer through that venue as well, I won't be offended or assume you're trying to "attack" me by opening one). - SudoGhost 02:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

MATE Logo
When I added the MATE icon to the MATE article you removed it because you stated you could not evidence of this being used by MATE for branding, as of 1.2 MATE yes it lacks proper branding. As for not finding evidenace of it being used, the MATE forums as well as on planet MATE the logo or a variation of it is used. Also as per use in Github, the first vairation is user here for start-here.png in the MATE icon theme which is installed into the system by default. RowenStipe (talk) 04:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * While the symbol appears to be used (although it doesn't appear to be any official logo), the specific image in question doesn't appear to have been used as a logo for anything, let alone be the MATE logo. This image has some use, but the image uploaded, with the font below it doesn't seem to be used anywhere.  Can you show anything that verifies that this image has been used as a logo for MATE? - SudoGhost 05:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Signing posts
I do not know if you realise this, but you have been 'signing' posts with the date only. Here is an example. I do not know how or why you do this; nor do I know whether you do it deliberately. But please could you do it the normal way, so that we know whose signature it is.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Whoops, sorry about that. Looks like I accidently added five tildes instead of four.  I replaced my old keyboard with one that is a different size then the previous one, the only thing I can think of is that maybe the keys are more sensitive than I'm used to.  I'll be more mindful to double check before I save the page in the future.  I took a quick look at my recent talk page comments, and that was the only instance I could find, were there more somewhere that I overlooked? - SudoGhost 07:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources
Hello, I am looking for some guidance from you regarding "reliable sources". In the article on Alesya Alexandrova you made a comment that the sources may not be "reliable" and I was hoping you could help by specifying what you consider to be such. Do they have to be U.S. originated news articles and such? I ask this because most of the citations there are Russian sources like Pravda ( The official Russian language newspaper of the Russian Federation ), Russian MSN and Magazines that are the Russian versions of XXL or FHM but do include such sources as IMDB. I am curious how these are judged to be non-reliable and to understand what you would consider to be so, so that perhaps something that is acceptable can be added to this article.

Luisv2k (talk) 21:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

little bit of mess at Raq-C‎
In case you haven't noticed, that user is keeping a copy of the Raq-C article at User:RaqC. Which is really strange to me. I also left a warning about the list of official links, which I've removed twice but keep coming back. Admittedly, the rest of the article is a big mess. tedder (talk) 04:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've seen that. It looked like  tried to create an article at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Raquel Cordova, but it was denied.  I'm holding off PROD'ing this Raq-C article or taking it to AfD in hopes that it will be filled with some kind of reliable sources, but right now it's just looking like a promotional article with no notability.  The user page was probably used initially as a sandbox by User:RaqC, I'm not sure what this other editor is trying to do with it, but WP:MFD might be an option there. - SudoGhost 04:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thank you for the welcome, and thank you for the cookie! :) Doopbridge (talk) 07:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Message
There's a message for you at ANI.– Lionel (talk) 10:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Time for a cuppa tea?
You may wish to take a cup of tea and stop letting the trolls bait you into something you will regret. -- The Red Pen of Doom  01:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources on Zugara wiki page?
I'm a bit confused as to how you marked the Zugara page as non-notable? This is a leading company in the Augmented Reality space and the references are reliable as well. Did TIME or Fast Company become unreliable recently?

MHSzymczyk (talk) 21:11, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's quite common for new articles about companies to refer to these companies as a "leading company in the XYZ field", and the lede of the article reads very much like an advertisement for the company. The TIME article is about Webcam Social Shopper, not Zugara. This fastcompany article is the same thing, Zugara is mentioned only as the maker of the software, the brief paragraph in that article is about the software, not the company.  That appears to be the case with nearly all of these sources, they are talking about the software, not the company.  Blogs like this one are generally not reliable sources, hence the reliability tag.  The reason the article is tagged is so that the article can be improved, otherwise it may be necessary to merge the content and redirect Zugara to the Webcam Social Shopper article. - SudoGhost 23:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources on new section on ArchLinux wiki page?
I've checked the history and saw that a comment says that user-submitted bug report is not a reliable source. But the bug report itself contains the discussions for it. So I'm not sure why and which kind of source is defined as reliable. Discussions and actions are on bug reports, forum, mailing list. Which should I provide as the reliable source? Recordlyl (talk) 11:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Discussions and user-submitted sources like that aren't reliable sources, so none of those would be reliable sources. An example of a reliable source would be a news article that details the issue.  However, looking through the archives of Talk:Taiwan, it looks like it isn't a black and white "one is right, one is wrong" but rather a "one side feels very strongly about their way, and the other side feels just as strong about theirs."  Therefore it seems like no matter which naming convention is used, it would make someone unhappy, but that isn't a notable thing unless reliable sources give weight to it. - SudoGhost 22:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

A page you started has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating About_dialog, SudoGhost!

Wikipedia editor Nathan2055 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Nice job!"

To reply, leave a comment on Nathan2055's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.


 * You mean the redirect I created? - SudoGhost 15:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Operate
Hi Sudoghost, this is not an account, only the IP of my modem. thanks.--88.242.175.173 (talk) 23:58, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Logging out to continue to make contentious edits is still sockpuppetry. Unless you're saying that you are not ? - SudoGhost 00:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You asked if I was using multiple accounts. The answer was no. The answer is no. Anything else ?--88.242.175.173 (talk) 00:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So are you, logged out and editing as an IP? - SudoGhost 00:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Different question.--88.242.175.173 (talk) 00:13, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well that answers that question. I'll just file an SPI and you'll be blocked for sockpuppetry.  Problem solved. - SudoGhost 00:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You asked me if I was using "multiple accounts". Am I right ? I can copy-paste you your initial question. And my answer is no no no no no. I DO NOT HAVE ANY MULTIPLE ACCOUNTS. Understand? The rest of the conversation is your assumptions that you wrote to yourself. --88.242.175.173 (talk) 00:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I never asked if you were "using multiple accounts", and the policy on multiple accounts specifically details that "Editing logged out in order to mislead" is sockpuppetry; whether an IP address is "an account" or not is irrelevant to this. - SudoGhost 00:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Cyanogenmod Cid Mascot.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Cyanogenmod Cid Mascot.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 16:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

CyanogenMod logo
Let's discuss about it at the discussion of the article. wmq (talk) 12:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

GNU/Linux on the Android article.
The Android article contains a section that talks about GNU/Linux in particular (not just linux), so I decided to edit it.

I've noticed you've reverted the edits stating that "Linux" is the common name. While Linux and GNU/Linux are generally terms for the same thing (and I don't mind both terms being interchanged), they are not in this context. This section talks about how Android is based on Linux, but is incompatible with GNU/Linux. Calling both things by the same name in the same section, is simply confusing.

This section also talks about GNU libraries in particular, which are not related to Linux, and have always been developed separately.

Note, in particular, that the only link to Linux in the article points to the Linux kernel, therefore, stating that Linux applications are incompatible with android makes no sense, since it stated that Android is based on the Linux kernel. HuGo_87 (talk) 18:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "GNU/Linux" is a POV term used by a minority of individuals to refer to the Linux operating system, not one reflected by reliable sources or common usage. Wikipedia articles reflect what reliable sources use.  The section details GNU libraries, but that doesn't mean that Linux is given a POV designation based solely on that association, that is confusing, especially because the reference used for that information does not use that term anywhere in the article. - SudoGhost 18:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that "GNU/Linux" is the term used only by a minority, and generally don't care about which is used, however if you say "Android is basd on Linux and doesn't run Linux apps", you need to clarify that the first time you mean "Linux kernel", and the second time "GNU/Linux" quite clearly. HuGo_87 (talk) 20:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It does say "Linux kernel", and then "Linux application", there's no confusion there; it'd be no different than saying something is based on the Windows kernel but because it doesn't use the traditional libraries, Windows applications are difficult to port. Why would there be any confusion there? - SudoGhost 20:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Thor's Street not notable.
Granted that there are many things named after "Thor" and streets are probably less notable than others, but if the street itself is inherently notable, would that make a difference? e.g Torsgatan --Robert Keiden (talk) 01:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Streets are not "inherently notable", but let's assume the street is notable enough to warrant a separate article. This doesn't mean that it warrants a mention in any and all applicable articles, that's what reliable sources are used to demonstrate.  As you said, there are many things named after Thor, how do we determine which of the thousands of similar things warrant a mention in the article, if not reliable sources that show that this street is a notable instance of Thor's name being used elsewhere? - SudoGhost 01:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. From a closer look, it appears this street is much less notable than the place names cited on Thor. I guess your rv comment "a street isn't particularly notable" seemed overly broad, as some streets can be. But since "streets aren't inherently notable" and "this street is not particularly notable", it's moot.  I'm still trying to understand the WP gestalt.  Thanks for the help! --Robert Keiden (talk) 02:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Vegetariansm nonviolence ethics
Actually yes, thank you. But I don't know how to create this template. Probably it requires account? And sometimes I wonder that they delete what I do. They have so much information on wikipedia about nonsense like meat etc, but don't support strong preaching on nonviolence and vegetarians. See - they have article that "Hitler was vegetarian"... but it is false! Hitler actually sentenced to death oldest in Europe "German vegetarian union". So there is such link between first killing animals, killing vegetarians, opening slughterhouses - then - killing people in 2nd war like on slaughterhouse for people... I'ld like to make some template maybe in GREEN color, but I was unablre to do so, so I decided to leave it alone without template. Still if you insist probably I'ld make it anyway this template...

But one thing is necessary - there are so many closed for editing pages... Some famous persons like Buddha Jesus and others alike - they are locked and I can't make addition that they ware also vegetarians, nonviolence preachers etc... So this is ... how to do? Should I register? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.94.1.60 (talk) 08:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Although it isn't required, you're always welcome to register an account. It does have some advantages though, such as being able to edit semi-protected pages after your account is old enough (I believe 10 days), as well as your own userspace so that you can test your edits in a Sandbox, among other things. Your comment at Talk:List of vegetarians was replied to, there was a suggestion that adding Category:Vegetarians to the bottom of the page will display a link at the bottom of the page, and will also have the benefit of populating the category, so that individuals viewing that category will see any page that has Category:Vegetarians added to it. I reverted the navbox additions to the pages, not because I disagree with the content or anything, but only because it would need to be in a template format. However, it looks like the category would be the preferred route, but if you think a template would be better you're more than welcome to discuss it with the editors at Talk:List of vegetarians. If you have any more questions or need any help, please feel free to ask and I'll help any way I can. - SudoGhost 08:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "User talk:SudoGhost". Thank you! EarwigBot   operator  /  talk 06:26, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I've tried to make a statement on the dispute resolution page, but the "edit" link does not lead to anything. I would like to say more than is available on the SudoGhost talk page, as I am now addressing the issue in general, not only in relation to my contributions. Now it's near midnight, however, and I'm going to bed. Mjbinfo (talk) 06:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)mjbinfo

A barnstar for you!
Throughout Wikipedia there are requests for more references in articles to supplement the material that is there. That is what I am doing--providing related material. Just because I had something to do with it, doesn't mean it is "promotional"! The Network Management reference is to an article that was edited and peer-reviewed and is of high quality. Readers of Wikipedia can be expected to value its addition to the encyclopedia. Mjbinfo (talk) 05:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)mjbinfo
 * At first I reverted the content because the additions weren't being used as references, they were being used essentially as "for more information, check out this book" additions; they added nothing to the article and didn't actually support any information. But then I noticed that although the author was often different, every single addition was by the same publisher.  This gives the appearance of WP:REFSPAM, on face value it looks as if they were added to promote the given book, not to improve the article, and this was repeated on 13 different articles; that's why the edits were reverted. - SudoGhost 05:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It also appears from this edit that this book came out in 2012. Surely you can see his this would appear to be spam for a book that you are associated with. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

You are so deeply cynical! The only possible explanation you can find is that this is self-promotion and that is bad. In every case, the added reference provided additional useful information on the topic. No wonder so many articles aren't adequately referenced, if when they are you kill them because--God forbid!--they may be associated with the person adding the reference. I'm a researcher, and researchers routinely cite their own work. That doesn't make them self-promotional. I've carefully evaluated each article and determined that the specific referenced item would constitute an addition to that entry. You need to use some judgment here, and not just assume that every item associated with a person is therefore an egotistical self-indulgence. Mjbinfo (talk) 05:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)mjbinfo
 * I am sorry, but regardless of your academic credentials, if someone is adding a reference that they are involved with commercially (a book they published or edited or have some other kind of clear conflict of interest with) to a number of pages on that topic, I do not see how it is unreasonable to suspect that there is some self-promotion involved. If you want, we can certainly escalate this discussion to the community of volunteers who oversee possible spam issues and they can make an unbiased determination.  Let me know if you would prefer that type of resolution.  We want to ensure that you are treated fairly. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

If it is your policy to automatically eliminate all references that may be associated with a person, then I think the policy should be challenged. By any objective standard, these references are a contribution to the articles. CRC Press is one of the top science publishers, and the individual articles within the book were edited and peer-reviewed. There's something wrong with the rules if they don't allow such relevant references to be added. Again, judgment is needed, just as it is with all the content of Wikipedia. It's hard not to feel insulted when these quality references are labeled spam, and someone else is patted on the back for detecting this--gasp!--self-promotion. Sorry for the sarcasm, but I think that label is pretty gratuitously hostile. Again, to answer your question, I do wish to challenge the general practice. Mjbinfo (talk) 06:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)mjbinfo


 * An outsider's perspective:
 * In general, the sort of linking you've referred to is problematic.
 * We need all the real experts we can get. If we have a distinguished professor adding real content to our articles (and Mjbinfo has done this in places), we need to encourage this. I appreciate her contributions.
 * I have made tens of thousands of spam removal edits over the last seven years but I always try to keep in mind that we're building an encyclopaedia, first and foremost. I am concerned that WP:BITEing an editor like Mjbinfo is counterproductive. We need content creators like her much more than we need administrators like myself.
 * It's not clear that Mjbinfo knew she was doing anything "wrong" until she got hit with vaguely unfriendly notices and warnings.
 * In this case, I think a personalized note, rather than our standard templates would have been more thoughtful and useful. See "Don't template the regulars"
 * Mjbinfo, you really shouldn't add links or citations to your own material without first getting consensus from other editors on our article talk pages. This procedure is a quality control "must" when we have an encyclopaedia open to everyone to edit and curated in many cases by people not deeply familiar with the subject of an article. We get all sorts of people citing their own works and >95% of the time, it's unhelpful at best.
 * Finally, SudoGhost, while I've disagreed with your approach to this one case, I very much appreciate your ongoing efforts to watch over our content.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 14:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I think there are some real issues here that go beyond my own concerns, though I am troubled about that part of it too. I seem to have been punished for my "crime" of adding references from something I edited because now the entry for my name in Wikipedia has a banner above it saying that it may be autobiographical, and needs to conform to Wikipedia's neutral point of view, i.e., saying I wrote too much of it. To see this is humiliating and embarrassing. I am rapidly coming to the point of wishing I had never had anything to do with Wikipedia. It is also really infuriating for the following reasons: 1) the entry was put in by someone else, I don't know who.  2) It was substantially added to by a man who is a professional critic of my work and who has written no fewer than four published articles both misrepresenting and running down my work. 3) I left his comments AS IS, painful though it was for me, out of respect for Wikipedia's open nature.  However, because he cared mostly only to criticize a couple of the dozens of articles I have written over a four-decade career, I added some material about the other several decades of my research and writing--in other words, my additions gave the article more balance and neutrality.  Now, however,  you are treating it with the utmost suspicion, on the assumption that ANYTHING a person writes about themselves must be self-indulgent egotistical self-promotion.  And you are punishing me publicly by adding a banner condemning the article for having been added to by the subject of the article.

You can't just assume that anything written by someone else is OK and properly neutral, but anything written by the same individual is necessarily lying self-promotion. That's WAAAAY too simplistic. And it's also a cop-out. You are not actually evaluating what is being done and are only using a simplistic rule that must also have a zillion other exceptions besides the ones I described above.

At first I was skeptical of Wikipedia, but came to feel that you have become a major force on the Web and should be taken seriously. So I took you seriously by adding to topics I know something about. I think, however, that the practices you have developed over the years are not ones to gain you the true respect you deserve among people who have serious expertise about the topics of the encyclopedia. Mjbinfo (talk) 19:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)mjbinfo

About Truth4all's allegations
User:Truth4all claimed on his talk page that I didn't want to discuss and, on my talk page, asserted that I was edit warring (assumption of bad faith?). When in fact, he has ignored my invitation for discussing and resolving the issues. I have tried to reach out again. He is, IMO, the one who is not amenable to discussions. Mrt 3366   (Talk page?)   10:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Reply
I'm done reverting. If someone retaliates, they're just instigating.  Rusted AutoParts  (talk) 00:21 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page. In this issue: Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->
 * Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
 * Research: The most recent DR data
 * Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
 * Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
 * DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
 * Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
 * Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Nexus 7
Hi, I see that you've been working on Android and consumer electronics-related articles, so you might be interested to know that I've recently started a PR for Nexus 7 at Peer review/Nexus 7/archive1, so if you're interested, please comment on the article. Cheers --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 06:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Ganglion cyst
As pertaining to the publishing act code which you ineligibly implied I broke I apologize.Please if you don't mind, would you be so kind as to help me speak my mind. There is some one who knows more on the subject of ganglion cyst by the name of Lee Macklin who has a website that promotes an alternative cure that the medical world wants to ignore. The information that the Wikipedia is advertising is false. I was just trying to add additional information is all. If you could help in this matter I would very much appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Releasefree (talk • contribs) 13:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Kenshō - or getting really pissed
Hi SudoGhost. Could you take a look with me at Kenshō and Talk:Kenshō, and give me a few wise words, before I start a stupid edit-war in my anger? Greetings, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 19:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I will certainly take a look, but it's fairly late here and I'm too exhausted to give a coherent look at anything right now, but I promise I'll take a look at it when I get online tomorrow. In the meantime, I'd recommend continuing to discuss with the other user if possible.  Take care. - SudoGhost 03:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sleep well. I'll keep discussing. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 03:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I have a lot going on this week, and I lost track of this discussion. There are a lot of diffs to go through on that article, so some time tomorrow hopefully I'll have a look and see if I can help in some way. - SudoGhost 06:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've already taken it Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.... Thanks anyway. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you please take a look at it anyway? I don't know if I posted this at the right page, and I hardly know how these procedures work. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 07:14, 20 September 2012 (UTC) ::::::(It's already in archive, but I've seen no further action yet) Joshua Jonathan (talk) 15:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've restored the thread to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents because it is unresolved. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 18:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Gautama Buddha
Will you please verify the accuracy of references regarding claims about birthplace in Orissa (#7 - 15) in Gautama Buddha? I could do that but I am a possible victim of edit-war at this moment. I read the source references, and some of them state Lumbini as birth place, some only speculate Orisa could be the birthplace, and some are opinion essays. The contention that Orrisa is the birthplace should remain, but needs to be reworded to reflect correct information from credible sources only. -BikashDai (talk) 21:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've adden a note + sources, and four quotes + sources at the TP, and moved Orisa to a footnote. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 09:07, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

regarding the QR Code
I changed the image because the masking was wrong. You can check the correct masking in the iso 18004 reference — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jericbryledy (talk • contribs) 14:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Advice or help with certain potentially unfree image
Ok, I've never done this, so not really sure how it's done properly... Someone has uploaded an image to infobox on Tashkent page, but it looks like it may not be a "free" image, as it exists on 2 other pages, one belonging to Uzbekistan Embassy. Soo... I can reverse that edit, but not really sure how to proceed with deleting the image from Commons. Rndomuser (talk) 01:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll take a closer look, but one of the websites appears to be a government website, meaning it could be a public domain image (although I don't know if it is a government website). In any case it appears to be a cleaned up version of the image found at that website, unless they just happened to take a photo with identical lighting and traffic at the same exact location.  It could be, however, that the website took this individual's photo and used it on their website.  I'll do some digging and get back to you on that. - SudoGhost 01:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! It was just pretty suspicious that the uploader of that image claimed that the image belonged to her/him AND that the image had a very similar size (suspiciously small for a "personal image") as the similar images on other pages... Rndomuser (talk) 01:31, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't able to find any archived versions of that particular webpage, but I believe I found where the image originated. It may be the same user but I think it's unlikely for a few reasons; I'm not sure why they would use a lower resolution of their own photo, and also because it was added on 18 September 2012, the file says it was created on 3 June 2012, but there are already copies of it on the internet at least as far back as 30 May 2011.  However, it isn't an obvious copyright violation, so a speedy deletion tag wouldn't be appropriate here.  Commons:Deletion requests would probably be would probably be what you would need to do in order to delete the image from Commons. - SudoGhost 01:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've submitted the non-speedy deletion request, thanks for help! Rndomuser (talk) 02:00, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Another advise needed
I've found a certain article about Sochi Thermal Power Plant, from what I can see it is an extremely short reference to some non-notable power plant, with absolutely no valid references or external links (the ones that were there before were either "dead" or with irrelevant information). Also, seems like noone is really interested in improving it, especially the original creator. Does it qualify for "speedy deletion" or should it be nominated for regular AfD? Rndomuser (talk) 02:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't qualify for speedy deletion; those tags are usually only used in situations where the article would be a detriment to Wikipedia, so much so that it requires immediate removal such as copyright violations, BLP violations, attack pages, things like that (WP:GCSD lists the criteria for speedy deletion). Articles like this one may not be the most useful or notable, but there's no rush to remove it from Wikipedia, so a speedy deletion wouldn't be suitable.  If you don't think it's fitting as an encyclopedia article and isn't notable, you can propose the deletion of the article.  Anyone can come along and object by removing the PROD tag, but if that happens and they make no attempt to add a source or improve the article in any way and you still feel the article isn't notable, then you could take the article to WP:AFD.  But I would suggest using PROD first. - SudoGhost 05:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. Rndomuser (talk) 05:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

User:GatorHalcon
FYI: User talk:GatorHalcon Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Russia in article "BRICS"
They are considering Russia as a developed country while in all Wikipedia articles,IMF lists and World Bank lists is considered a developing country.You are trying to change reality in this article with ref n.3.Ridiculous to have a such article all invented.It's time to erase this ridiculous mistake. Wikipedia is becoming ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.40.60.19 (talk • contribs)
 * Well if you have a source for that, it would help. However, what you inserted in the article is a little more broad than what you're discussing.  Please use a reliable source as a reference if you insert the material.  Thank you. - SudoGhost 12:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review of AfD that you participated in
As you participated a few days ago in Articles for deletion/Flat Bastion Road, I thought you might wish to know that the result of that discussion (to keep the article) is being challenged in a deletion review. If you have any views on this (i.e. whether to endorse the result, overturn it or something else) then please feel free to comment at Deletion review/Log/2012 October 2. Prioryman (talk) 22:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Mehmed II
There's been a request for full protection of this article at WP:RFPP. However, it looks to me like User:Tevkar's removal is correct (see his last edit summary). Do you agree now with the state of the article in this regard?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the reason I was reverting it was because I just saw removal of sourced content with no edit summary or explanation, but now that it's been explained I don't disagree with it at all, I think it was just a communication issue. - SudoGhost 00:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:01, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Flat Bastion Road
I'm not disputing your argument, I'm disputing whether or not adding such tags are appropriate or not. I think not. I think we both know that that article can't be improved much further and that it would be difficult to suddenly settle the notability dispute by expanding it alone. So while the dispute is going I ask you to avoid slopping tags on it. A merge proposal could be made once Streets in Gibraltar is written perhaps.♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The closing admin seems to be okay with the tag, so I'd think it's appropriate. What isn't appropriate is yet again an editor removing the tag without discussion.  "No tags until we decide what to do with this" completely defeats the purpose of the tag.  Unless you are going to discuss the subject, you're drive-by removal of the tag isn't helping, and unless the issue is discussed, let alone fixed I'm restoring the tag, because removing it doesn't help the article but rather hinders it.  The tag is there to make people aware of the problem, if you aren't willing to help discuss this problem that's fine, but the notability issue isn't going to just go away because the tag was removed, and it would be inappropriate to discuss merging or another AfD without giving editors time to improve the article.  The tag notifies them of this.  Quite a few editors have noticed the tag now, yet somehow you've all missed the talk page discussion, so I think that kind of reinforces the fact that the tag is necessary. - SudoGhost 12:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * With due respect, I doubt there is a single active wikipedian who isn't aware of the conflict over this article and Gibraltarpedia. The tag is disputable, and in all likelihood would encourage editors to add more content which isn't about the road but the bastion, I think its reached its max, so if anything it would probably worsen the problem. By all means add a merge tag and suggest a merger of the article into a general one or something. My personal opinion is that there is enough mention of the road to constitute a mention but I wouldn't object to a merger into a general article which I think could be more productive and strictly about the road.♦ Dr. Blofeld
 * I don't understand what Gibraltarpedia has to do with the article? - SudoGhost 12:21, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

How to add a link to a program without creating a new page for it
You just undid this change of mine: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Font_editor&diff=516656002&oldid=516645632

That article contains a "List of font editors". Is there a way to add a link to a program listed there that would be appropriate for Wikipedia, without having to create a new page for that program?

rdiez 188.72.244.60 (talk) 07:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

PS
I'm a bit confused re: your recent message about an addition I made to a page. I merely linked an article about the page topic - there was NO promotional material within the link. WriterMom73 (talk) 15:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well your edits so far have been for the sole purpose of adding this Pacific Standard magazine into articles, which seemed a little bit promotional. I was not accusing you of anything, just letting you know. - SudoGhost 16:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Question about infoboxes
I found a certain edit: where the editor attempted to add refs to a certain item in a certain infobox... I'm kind of confused about the reason it doesn't currently work - is it because such refs can't be added to certain elements in infoboxes or is there some kind of tiny formatting error I'm not able to notice? :-/ Rndomuser (talk) 03:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm on my phone so I'll have to keep this short, but I took a look at the infobox. From what I can tell on my phone, it looks like the refs aren't the issue, but that there are two different production parameters in the infobix; the second one is overriding the first one, so only the second one's content is being displayed. deleting the second parameter should fix the issue. - User:SudoGhost (Away) 04:11, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, now I see it. That fixed it, thanks! Rndomuser (talk) 04:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Rollbacks
Hello! Out of curiosity, what happened? :) —David Levy 17:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I misclicked and it then loaded your contribs, and I thought they were my contribs and clicked the last one to revert my mistake...only to make another. I reverted them asap, but it was just me misclicking the wrong thing...twice. - SudoGhost 17:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * No worries. I assumed that it was something along those lines.  (:  —David Levy 18:54, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

April 25-28, 2011 tornado outbreak
I got a message on my talk page and immediately thought of you. See Talk:April 25-28, 2011 tornado outbreak and let's fight this off once more! The one who sent me the message thinks that I am for the renaming (don't know where he got that idea). Also, he has readded the "also known as the 2011 Super Outbreak" to the main page. I would appreciate your help. Thanks, United States Man (talk) 04:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I had seen the move discussion last night. I don't think there's anything to "fight" off, and it looks like there's already no chance of anything happening, but the page is on my watchlist so I'll see the discussion. - SudoGhost 17:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I realize that now, but you never know when they will get enough people together to get it moved. I guess it was a false alarm this time. United States Man (talk) 21:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

 * Not a problem, and welcome to Wikipedia! If you have any questions I'll be glad to help any way I can. - SudoGhost 20:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

List of unusual deaths
I am amazed that anyone could see, react, revert and then construct a Talk Page warning, all within the space of two minutes. You must be a real SudoSprite. Or not. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing you're referring to this? I did a quick google search for the name + spontaneous combustion, and nothing came up, so it was likely a middle schooler or someone who knew the individual placing the name there for laughs, which would make it a potential WP:BLP issue since it's possibly a living person.  Regardless of the intent, it is very unlikely to be accurate.  Reading the entry, it sounded extremely dubious that someone laughed at something while spontaneous combustion occured on the toilet to then be eaten by pigs.  The talk page takes about ten seconds to do when using Twinkle. - SudoGhost
 * Yes, all totally fictitious, I'd guess. Twinkle certainly speeds things up. But now I am ever more impressed that you managed to get a Google search in, as well, in that two minutes! Middle schooler sounds about right. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Having two monitors is pretty useful, and thanks to a previous job I got pretty efficient with using Google on a second monitor while doing something else on the primary, since the more calls I was able to get in the better, and Google just happened to be the best way to quickly find the information. Plus having two monitors is useful when you're checking out a source on one while working on an article on the other, I'd definitely recommend it. - SudoGhost 22:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I can just about cope with (and see) one QUITE LARGE monitor, thanks! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Windows 8". Thank you!--Amadscientist (talk) 19:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2012 October 24
Are we related by any chance? Drmies (talk) 02:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Unless you have a relative that lives in a city whose article needs a quality assessment *cough*, probably not. - SudoGhost 02:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm no. But congratulations on the fancy linguistic footwork--you outdanced me there. Drmies (talk) 02:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Enlightenment (spiritual)
Hi SudoGhost. There's a discussion going on at Talk:Enlightenment (spiritual) and Talk:Enlightenment (spiritual) about the inclusion of an obscure article with an "explanation" of the Buddha's enlightenment. The same article has been mentioned at Enlightenment (Buddhism); both additions have been removed because of the unreliability of the source. All of a sudden, three new users, user:Lotus sutra81, User:Enterodoc9 and User:Raul7213, none of them having created a user-page, are contributing to the discussion, suporting the same pro-inclusion opinion. It makes me think of WP:SIMNAME, WP:XS and WP:OBSART. I've shared my impression with User talk:Lova Falk; she's got the same impression. Could you have a look at it and say what's your impression of it? Greetings, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 14:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I took a look at the two newer accounts that were actually discussing it on the talk page. There are certainly syntactic similarities in the writing styles of the two accounts.  Not to mention, the very first edit of the second account is to reply to Dominus Vobisdu that they "couldn't resist".  Given the conversation the Ent account was replying to, it's odd that they would reply in place of the Lotus account.  It's also odd that so many new accounts would know to come to the talk page and comment when there's nothing going on with the article that would alert them to this (no maintenance templates, no back and forth edit war).  There's nothing so telling that I'm 100% positive that they are the same person, but I think it's likely.  If not, given the timeliness I think it's likely that at the very least there's some sort of "meatpuppetry" going on.  That's just my 2¢.  I'd recommend opening an WP:SPI though; unless they are confirmed sockpuppets don't treat them like they are, because it's always possible they aren't and it's a coincidence.  - SudoGhost 22:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay. Thanks again for your time :) Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * So I did start a SPI: Sockpuppet investigations/Raul7213 Blllh, this is getting on my nerves... Joshua Jonathan (talk) 20:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like all 5 named accounts were confirmed. Hopefully that will solve that issue. - SudoGhost 14:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * So, that was a good guess. But there may be more: User talk:Dominus Vobisdu. But maybe I'm seeing patterns which are not there... Joshua Jonathan (talk) 15:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Runemarks and Runelight
Hello, just a note to let you know I removed your prods from the above articles as I believe they meet the notability guidelines.

Thank you. Rotten regard      Softnow  21:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

DADT
Please do not add homosexual. It is an offensive term, you wouldn't allow nigger or kike would you? C T F 8 3 ! 10:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you stuck in the 1960s? Gay 99.99999% of the time referes to people of same sex attraction. C T F 8 3 !  10:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Weigh in C T F 8 3 !  10:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Given that Homosexuality is the title of Wikipedia's article on the subject, and reliable sources use the term, I disagree. "Gay" is an inprecise term with several meanings.  There is not a single term used to describe the subject that nobody things is a pejorative, including "gay", so that's not a strong argument to use when the term you wish to introduce in the article is not only slang, but is more often considered a pejorative than homosexual.  You're welcome to start a discussion on the talk page, but when several editors revert your edits, there's probably a good reason for it, and "it's offensive so I'm changing it no matter what" isn't one that holds any weight. - SudoGhost 10:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you American? Gay? Again the word homosexual is offensive as it has 1970s clinical connotations when it was considered a mental illness, in the same way nigger/negro is now offensive but wasn't in the 1800s C T F 8 3 !  10:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Everything is offensive; every term used to described the subject can be considered offensive in some way to someone, so that argument is very weak. Gay is just as offensive, if not more so, and is also inprecise. Discuss this on the article's talk page, not here. You're not going to convince me to replace a term with a precice meaning with another one that has many meanings just because you find one pejorative, whereas others find your term pejorative. - SudoGhost 10:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've never heard of anyone saying gay is offensive, that's ignorant. I linked you to the discussion. You also never answered my 2 questions, but whatever. C T F 8 3 !  10:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You've never heard something, so what I said is ignorant? You do realize that you not knowing something is the definition of ignorance, and what you called ignorant is nothing of the sort?  It doesn't matter what nationality or sexual orientation I have, unless you intend to use that affiliation as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting my view.  Does my sexual orientation play some part in how valued my opinion is?  I can think of no other reason as to why you're so keen on asking but it doesn't matter; personal details play no part in how Wikipedia articles are handled.  The discussion you linked is fine, but is only marginally relevant to the article in question.  If you wish to change the information in that article after several editors have reverted you, discuss it on the article talk page and get a consensus for your edit. - SudoGhost 11:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I also know of no one who considers 2 several. Obviously if you're straight the word homosexual won't offend you just like the word nigger doesn't offend me but we shouldn't use it if it offends anyone. C T F 8 3 !  11:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Given that you've brought up editor's sexual orientation as a reason to include someone in a discussion or not, I do consider that several. I will tell you one personal thing if it will amuse you: I strongly dislike when people use the term "obviously", because that is never the case, it's a rather close-minded outlook to say that your truth is obvious.  Don't confuse "it offends someone" with "Wikipedia should censor the term because it offends someone", especially when reliable sources use the term to describe the subject.  Find me a modern reliable source that uses "nigger" as a descriptor outside of discussing its offensiveness and I'll give your comparison to homosexual some merit. - SudoGhost 11:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm on my phone so what are some of the supposed reliable sites that use the word homosexual that aren't right wing extremist religious sites C T F 8 3 !  11:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's becoming increasingly apparent that you have a very strong, particular point of view, and want to only use sources which agree with your viewpoint. While there are "right-wing" individuals that identify as homosexual, media outlets considered "left-wing" also use homosexual as a descriptor. - SudoGhost 12:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have time to thoroughly read those but I'm not advocating against the term homosexuality I'm against calling gay people homosexual C T F 8 3 !  12:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Instead of addressing the subject, you're asking others what their personal details are and suggesting only individuals of a certain orientation are invited to discuss the subject, and despite being informed that it isn't appropriate, proceed to attempt to discredit the views of others based on their personal affialations. You ask for sources and then ignore them when presented and are calling things you disagree with "ignorant".  I don't think continuing this discussion on my talk page will serve any useful purpose.  If you wish to change the article's wording, please discuss it on the talk page and obtain a consensus for your changes. - SudoGhost 12:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation of ThePortuguese and Bowlfisher
I have started a sockpuppet investigation of ThePortuguese and Bowlfisher. The users' edits appear very similar to a contentious editor, Y26Z3, who was permanently banned from wikipedia for making contentious edits, personal threats, and legal threats (and with whom you have had interactions in the past). If you'd like to weigh in, please feel free to visit the investigation page:

Goodsdrew (talk) 15:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's already on my watchlist, but just to clarify Y26Z3 was indefinately blocked, not banned. - SudoGhost 16:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Reminder: Wikipedia Loves Libraries Atlanta event - November 17
Hello SudoGhost: I wanted to give you a reminder for the Wikipedia Loves Libraries event that is scheduled for November 17. If you had signed up as tentative, please visit the meetup page and confirm your participation. I look forward to seeing you there. — Ganeshk  ( talk ) 05:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Arb
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 20:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Bitcoin
Hi there, I'm terribly sorry, I was traveling this weekend and was under the impression I'd replied to you. Is the consensus still that unprotection is the way to go? Just curious since I notice it hasn't been unprotected by someone else via RFPU since you left the note for me, so just wanted to confirm. · Andonic  contact 18:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well it looks like there's been a lot of issues with sockpuppets of HowardStrong coming along to vandalize Bitcoin-related pages, to the point that even the Talk:Bitcoin had to be semi-protected several times (and is even now semi-protected). So, I'm not so sure. - SudoGhost 16:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, SudoGhost. Just wanted to say hi and "thanks" for being diligent on your work on the Bitcoin page. I agree with your edits, and hope you will continue to work there. (Fist-bump!) Jtibble (talk) 07:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

List of Linux distributions
Thanks for removing the 'redlinked' entries on the List of Linux distributions page. It's already more than big enough. I was about to post about a similar thing on the talk page, but I guess the be bold policy is important. I have taken the liberty of removing three more redlinked entries but I am unsure of 'Elementary OS', under

third party Ubuntu-based distributions. While I believe that if it is not reputable enough to have its' own Wikipedia

page, then it should not be on this list; it seems reputable and I think I should give it a week to see if anyone

creates one.

Also perhaps I should create another list of only major Linux distributions, this would be much more readable and could

archive a higher article quality.

What do you think?EvilKeyboardCat (talk) 08:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it'd be a good idea in theory, but the problem would be determining what makes a distro "major". I think if you brought this up at WT:LINUX they might be able to come up with an idea for how that could be done. - SudoGhost 21:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Rollback
Don't you just hate it when the rollback hyperlink just happens to be right next to the actual thing that you meant to select? ☺ Uncle G (talk) 21:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry about that. I went to click a diff on my watchlist, my browser apparently hadn't finished loading so it had other, more diabolical plans. - SudoGhost 21:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Bitcoin as a Ponzi Scheme
Hi there. Please be advised proposals are being solicited for replacement text for the discussion you entered at Talk:Bitcoin. prat (talk) 23:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:BRD
If editors disagree with my reference style, I am more than happy to discuss the issue on talk, and seek consensus. I have linked you are relevant policy to explain my actions. In particular, while enforcing and undoing LDR may be controversial, I am also running REFLINKS and improving the informational constant of references. You undoing my REFLINK edit is clearly disruptive. Implementing LDR helps me to pre-clean the refs for the REFLINKs run. Feel free to remove LDR if you really hate them, I don't particularly care. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * SudoGhost, I have to admit that I don't see the point of you following Piotrus around and with one little click undoing a lot of work. You can point to "oh one shouldn't go around making large changes" all day long, but at some point you have to be able to argue that the status quo you reverted to is better than what Piotrus had to offer--and he put time and effort into it. I suggest you stop reverting, if there's anything left to revert, for now. Strongly. Drmies (talk) 03:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * When an editor is going to dozens of articles and arbitrarily changing the formatting without discussion, and that editor is being reverted by multiple editors, I don't think they should be surprised when they are reverted. This is no different than an WP:ERA change, if an editor's going around arbitrarily changing something that specifically requires a consensus to change, that's not appropriate.  It's one thing to work extensively on a single article and change the formatting; its another thing to go to dozens of articles they've never edited before just to change the formatting for no other reason than to change the formatting.  this has been discussed on plenty of talk pages, and when the very thing he's citing says that "articles should not undergo large scale conversion between formats without consensus to do so", maybe he should get consensus before doing so.  - SudoGhost 03:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Unless there's a consensus, it shouldn't be changed; that's what WP:Citing sources says, and not a single article talk page this change has been discussed on has been supportive of the change in any capacity. I think that's cause for not having an editor going around making large scale reference changes like that. I don't think "well I already put time into it" is an excuse to ignore these factors, because there's nothing supporting these changes, and both guidelines and discussions giving plenty of reasons why it shouldn't be done. - SudoGhost 03:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's time (if there's dozens such discussions--you only linked to one) to centralize this somewhere. I hope you and Piotrus maybe could agree to one single discussion somewhere, and in that case your comments about dozens and multiples are more easily proven. Piotrus, since the B was your Boldness, maybe you should start this somewhere. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 03:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I didn't say there were dozens of such discussions, I said there were dozens of articles where this change was made (actually probably closer to a dozen), but "plenty" of talk pages where it was discussed. However, I apologize for not linking the others, "plenty" is a vague and near-useless word without actually linking the discussions.  They are found at Talk:Twitter, Talk:Christmas, Talk:Blog, Talk:Thanksgiving (United States), Talk:Abraham Lincoln, Talk:History of the United States, and Talk:American Civil War.  Except for the last instance (where nobody responded), there has been no support of the proposed change in any capacity, only people opposing the change for various reasons. - SudoGhost 03:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. I really hope Piotrus will have something to say here in response. I hate it when two good content editors start duking it out and then I have to block all of you and delete your work and foreclose your home and all that. Drmies (talk) 04:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The relevant guideline you linked says specifically not to do it without consensus. Get consensus, then make the change. Do not make the change and then do additional edits expecting it not to be reverted back to the previous version, I cannot help that you created that problem for yourself, but I'm not going to manually pick through your edit just because you chose to ignore Citing sources, the very thing you're citing as reason to do these edits. I do not care if it helps you with WP:REFLINKS; if you have to ignore the very thing you're citing in order to allow you to use WP:REFLINKS the way you want, you're doing it wrong. It's odd that you're citing WP:BRD in this section header, then telling me that my reverting you is disruptive, despite that fact that you already know you need a consensus before you make these changes. It's fine that you want to use WP:REFLINKS, but don't arbitrarily change the formatting of the article without getting a consensus first, and then expect others to clean up your mess and then call their edits "disruptive" when they revert your edits. - SudoGhost 03:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I have no problem discussing changes, and I don't restore my edits after a revert. I also don't mind that SudoGhost voiced his opposition to my edits in a dozen or so articles - I am not a primary contributor there, and I asked for the community opinion, which he is part of. What I find disruptive is reverting my edits by an editor (SudoGhost) who has not edited a given article before, but simply dislikes LDR, particularly when that editor is also reverting 1) citation needed tags in an article I was expanding, 2) a REFLINKs run for over 40 references and addition of BareURLs (,, ; in all those cases I use LDR to simplify further cleanup before I run REFLINKS), and 3) is now apparently stalking me across Wikipedia (he just reverted me at one of the articles I am a primary contributor to and which I am developing towards Good Article: , and where I was simply synchronizing refs to a LDR format that I've implemented there months ago, I was simply bringing the references to a uniform standard there). To summarize, SudoGhost has reverted dozens of reference back to bare references, removed citation needed and other maintenance template, and went against previously established reference scheme in an article that was using LDR, going against the expressed wished of the primary contributor in that article. He cites CITEVAR, but he violated it in two parts, reverting my edits recommended by that very policy ("Improving existing citations by adding missing information; for example, replacing bare URLs with full bibliographic citations: an improvement because it fights linkrot" (my example 2); "Imposing one style on an article with incompatible citation styles", and going against the "article's established citation" (my example 3)). This is disruptive, bordering on harassing. PS. I have never reverted more than once; SudoGhost has now reverted me twice on my GA candidate: , . Oh, and in those reverts he also removes my disambig fix in the article, too. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You know very well that you should get a consensus first, this has been pointed out many, many times by now, so the "but I did a lot of work so it's too late to revert it" argument doesn't hold any weight. This isn't "the guideline I'm citing says not to do it so I'm going to do it anyways and make sure I do other stuff so that it can't be reverted." Nobody is stopping you from improving the existing citations, but if you have to ignore part of a guideline to implement another, that's not going to work. You don't ignore a guideline, and then expect others to clean up around you. Get a consensus first, as per the guideline you keep citing. If you get a consensus, then you'll have that on your side and then I truly will be "the bad guy" and I'd be completely in the wrong to revert you. As it stands however, the guideline you're citing says not to do what you're doing. All I'm asking is that you follow the guideline and get a consensus first. It would be a lot easier to do it in a centralized location as Drmies suggested. Do that, and there's absolutely no issue here, you won't hear a peep out of me, I promise. But as long as you're going against the guideline and making sweeping changes across all these articles despite the fact that you know there's editors who disagree with it, that's a problem. Wikipedia talk:Citing sources would be a good place to discuss it centrally, with links to that discussion on the other discussions that have already been started. - SudoGhost 04:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't muddy the waters. This is not about the discussions started; in most of them it's clear there is no consensus for LDR and I am not reverting to LDR there. This is about articles where you restored bare references, and others where I am the primary contributor, you've never edited and you suddenly arrived and started reverting me. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There is nothing muddy here. When the guideline you're citing says "articles should not undergo large scale conversion between formats without consensus to do so" and you choose to ignore that and make those changes anyways, that indicates a problem, and since you're citing that guideline, I'm going to follow that guideline, not just parts of it.  It does not say "articles should not undergo large scale conversion between formats without consensus to do so, unless you've edited the article a bunch, then it's cool."  Get a consensus first.  That's not muddy water, that's clear as day. - SudoGhost 04:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * One part of a policy is not more important than the other. I've cited a number of parts of WP:CITE you have violated, stop pointing to the single one that may support your action and ignoring the others. And in case of the Pulaski article, it is YOU who went against the consensus. The article's primary contributor (me) introduced LDR there months ago, to no objections from anybody else, including the Good Article reviewer. Today I was following CITEVAR and moving some new refs I have added to join the old refs I have added in the format I chose for the article I primarily wrote. You clearly went against the consensus there. Revert yourself there, and we can talk about other cases. You are also misunderstanding something: you have reverted me twice now, and you failed to start discussions on the respective articles, asking if the primary contributors there have an opinion. You are being disruptive and going against the consensus, not me. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  05:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You just hit the nail on the head. "One part of a policy is not more important than the other."  What does that tell you?  You're more than welcome to expand the refs, nobody is stopping you.  But don't expect for an edit to not be reverted just because complies with "most of the guideline", but ignores something specifically saying not to do change what the edit is changing.  You made an edit that was contrary to the guideline you cited, and it has been reverted.  The onus is on you to discuss the edit before trying to make these changes, don't expect other editors to get a consensus for you, and don't expect other editors to clean up around your edit just because your edit was in line with "most of the guideline". - SudoGhost 05:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll expand on this, but don't worry about Pulaski, I asked the editor who made the date change to help us, hopefully he can revert to my version, run the script, and save both of us time (if you agree with me at User talk:Rrius this should make it easy for him to do this). I'll expand more on our conflict, this is just an update to save you from wasting time doing something someone else can do more easily. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:44, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Whoops, I didn't see this message until after I had already done it. I went ahead and let Rrius know as well. - SudoGhost 05:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, let's step back and try to work it out. Both of us are experienced contributors, and we don't need to stress ourselves fighting one another, right? I realized in the past few days LDR are much more controversial then I thought they were, hence talk discussions. However, I believe that it is fine to implement LDR in an article without asking, once, and if nobody reverts, it means that the community is fine with it; call it consensus by no objection. Before you object to that idea, consider that we don't go around asking people for permission to do most edits, in fact asking for permission is done only in exceptional cases. We usually discuss things that are clearly controversial (deletion, some - but not all - moves, etc., mergers, and such). I don't believe CITEVAR requires one to ask for permission before doing an edit, it simply asks to seek consensus. And editing first, discussing later if objection (a revert) arises is totally fine per BRD. BRD clearly states that "BRD is a method for reaching consensus". Now, if somebody objects, I don't revert them, I either start a discussion or leave the article, per BRD. So, to sum this up, I believe I am editing totally in line with CITEVAR and CONSENSUS when I do my LDR edits. IF I was revert warring about this, it would be a problem, but please note I am not.
 * Second. On some articles, I will engage in more ref fixing than just LDR, I do this using REFLINKs, which are a clearly non-controversial and obviously helpful tool. To maximize REFLINKs efficiency, I'll strip some poor metadata from some refs, because REFLINKs won't touch poor metadata, if I want to improve it, I need to strip it first. This, however, is much more easily done with LDR format. This is what I've done in those university articles: LDR first, so I can REFLINK more easily. If I didn't do LDR, my reflink run would be much less efficient. By reverting me there you restored a lot of clearly inferior bare or poor metadate reflinks. And by saying that you will not allow LDR in those articles, you are telling me "either spend much more time doing the reflink run to fix all the refs you wanted, or settle for fixing some, because I won't allow you to fix them all in the method you prefer". The result is that you'll revert those articles to inferior references, clearly less helpful to the reader; and even if you were to run reflinks yourself, you'd have to spend much more time than I did stripping bad metadata, or settle for a version that is still inferior to one after my run. I just don't see why you'd want to interfere with those edits of mine; while one can argue for or against LDR vs non-LDR and make some point, I don't think that there is much argument to be had that non-LDR version is clearly inferior to a LDR version after my REFLINK run. And while your CITEVAR argument is far with regards to reverting a pure LDR implementation, I don't believe it is fair to use it in the LDR+REFLINKs, because you are arguing from a pure policy standpoint against my edit which led to a clear improvement in ref quality visible for any reader, not only editor. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Piotrus, how about this: as of this diff, I'm not going to touch anything that's already been changed. What is changed is changed, I'm not going to touch what's already been done.  But from this point forward, we get a consensus before changing any formatting styles, per the guideline, even the things that have been reverted previously.  Certain things don't require a consensus, but I don't think formatting is one of them, especially when a guideline feels the need to specifically point out the fact that it isn't.  I know that you're used to doing WP:REFLINKS a certain way, but I'm not arguing from a pure policy standpoint when I object to changing them this way, and I'll try to explain the best that I can:  Editors wrote the citations in a specific way for a reason, and I think it's been demonstrated that most editors prefer the non-LDR method.  I don't think it's fair for every other editor to have to adapt to a method they're not comfortable with and don't want just because a single editor wanted to clean up references with the least amount of effort possible (clarification: I'm not accusing you of being lazy, just of trying to be efficient).  It's simpler for you, but creates more effort for others in the long run.  That's the issue, and why I was reverting it as it happened; when you change the formatting like that, it's hard to revert something after someone else has edited it, as I think Casimir Pulaski clearly shows.  It creates all kinds of problems and isn't just a simple "revert".  That's why it's easier and makes more sense to get a consensus before doing an edit like that because you can't just hit "undo" if you disagree with the edit unless nobody else has edited the article since then; even the smallest change will mean you have to go in and manually rearrange the entire article just to revert it. - SudoGhost 06:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Glad to see you all talking You are indeed experienced editors who are here out of some weird desire to improve the project. As an also-experienced editor who wouldn't mind reading along, can I give you all a couple of these,       , to help out those with older eyes and shorter attention span than you young wolves? FWIW, if I can stick in a cent or two, I've worked with the LDR system (or something like it) on the advice of Mandarax, and while I see its advantages (actually, I don't, but usually Mandarax gives good advice and I don't want to say anything bad about his suggestion), it is true that it makes it more difficult for subsequent editors, esp. those unfamiliar with the system, to expand the article; you can't always easily tell that the system is being employed since the refs look just like a regular multiple reference. Anyway, that's me. Carry on, Drmies (talk) 18:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Sudo, I have no intention on going on a LDR campaign across many articles. As a result of our discussion, I'll try not to do LDR runs just for LDR sake, fair enough. But if I'll see an article I want to clean up refs with REFLINKS and LDR will save me time, I'll do it, because I am clearly improving the article (adding metadata, cleaning up link rot). I think that's a reasonable compromise (from my "let's u use LDR everywhere" and yours "let's not use them anywhere" perspective). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Without a consensus to do so beforehand, don't expect those edits to not be reverted. It may be a little bit easier for you, but that's extremely disruptive to everyone else.  If I see it, I'm going to revert it, because the guideline says to get a consensus first, so you ignoring that isn't going to fly.  If you keep it up without getting a consensus first, I'm going to take this issue to AN/I and ask that you be topic banned from moving the references at all, on any article.  Please get a consensus first, if that's too difficult, don't change the references around.  - User:SudoGhost (Away) 02:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Happy Wars
There isn't any concrete info suggesting that there is a difference between http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Freeware_games and free-to-play games. It has been suggested by the admin that the category http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Free-to-play_video_games be merged. Please note that there is a consensus with undoing edits on an article more than three times within a 24hour period. If you believe that the there is a difference between freeware and free-to-play, then discuss it on the talk page. Beem2 (talk) 20:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Not any concrete info? You mean other than multiple reliable sources that verify the content you're removing?  You've already made three reverts on the article, so I really you should be watching your own edits. You think the statement is inaccurate, but it has multiple reliable sources supporting it.  Do not remove it again, or you will be reported at WP:AN3 for edit warring.  This is the last time I will say this: there is a difference between "free" and "free-to-play", and your opinion that there is no difference is not supported by reliable sources, which say otherwise. Therefore, the content stays in the aritcle untily uo can establish a consensus that says otherwise (which is doubtful).  If you think it is inaccurate, discuss it, because multiple sources very clearly say otherwise, so your argument has zero weight. - SudoGhost 20:22, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

IP Address 46.26.24.200
I see that you have interacted with this editor as well. Based on their significant proficiency with English from an IP address that geolocates to the Canary Islands, do you feel there is cause for concern with this editor? I call your attention to Talk:The Oatmeal and FunnyJunk legal dispute where I have explained why adding an unsourced assertion is inappropriate. Hasteur (talk) 00:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late response...turkey. I don't think there's any real cause for concern; I've made a comment on the Talk:The Oatmeal and FunnyJunk legal dispute talk page, and they seem to be willing to discuss on the talk page, so at least that's something.  The Oatmeal and FunnyJunk legal dispute is on my watchlist (it's how I found their BLP edit on the other article, by clicking on their name on the oatmeal article), so I'll certainly be keeping an eye on the page.  Happy Thanksgiving! - User:SudoGhost (Away) 07:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution noticeboard
Hello. I am a dispute resolution volunteer at Dispute resolution noticeboard. I just deleted some material that you added that violated our "do not discuss the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments" policy. I apologize for having to do that, but DRN is a place where we try to resolve disputes in a systematic and structured manner, not a place to continue the arguing you are already engaging in on the article talk page, I encourage you to read the Guide for participants at the top of WP:DRN so that you know what our policies are. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: the above comment is obsolete. See below.
 * Hi! First, a bit of background. You happened to run in to one of the few cases where DRN volunteers disagree. I think that if the parties to the dispute are allowed to completely ignore our instructions (in this case at the top of the page under "Guide for participants" and at the bottom where it tells you "do not discuss the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments") this will make it unlikely that we can resolve the dispute. That is why I deleted them. It has nothing to do with whether the arguments are good or bad. Another editor disagreed and thinks that the comments that broke the rules should stay in.


 * We don't often disagree at WP:DRN, and when we do it is usually settled without any drama. Everybody would laugh at us otherwise! In this case I plan on waiting until your case is settled one way or the other and then discussing the case at the DRN talk page. I am also withdrawing from the dispute because I am not comfortable with trying to resolve a dispute if I cannot enforce our rules -- we put a lot of thought into writing a set of rules that makes it more likely that we will be able to settle the dispute and I don't want to drag you into a disagreement that has nothing to do with your dispute. There are a bunch of other DRN volunteers who are quite good, and I am leaving this to them.


 * If you really want me on the case (I suspect that I have a more technical knowledge on the topic than anyone else on DRN) you could do so by agreeing to allow me to enforce the DRN rules, but it is probably best to just see who volunteers to help and see how it goes.


 * I apologize for you even having to think about this. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:42, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * (I moved this comment to the right section, since the section it was in was about something slightly different; same article, different discussion) It's all good, and completely understandable what you did.  I agree with why you removed it, and wouldn't have even made the statement in the first place, it's just that another editor picked my opening statement apart sentence by sentence and tried to dismiss every part of my opening comment; given that, I only thought it appropriate to respond to it. - User:SudoGhost (Away) 04:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Quite reasonable. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Happy Wars
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC) 00:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Third opinion
Hi SudoGhost. Could you give your opinion at Talk:Sherry Chayat? Greetings, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 20:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I left a comment there, unhelpful though it probably was. - SudoGhost 09:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * At least it alerted someone else, and I've posted a request at the noteboard, as you adviced. Thanks! Joshua Jonathan (talk) 10:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Intermediary?
Hi! I'm kind of involved with Articles for deletion/Eleanor Leonne Bennett, which is pretty much turning into one big argument. I was wondering if it's time to bring in an admin to mediate things since AndreaUK seems to really focus on taking swipes at us and from her other edits, this looks like it's been a problem for a while. (See this talk page: Talk:The_UKA_Press) Should I post something on the admin board?Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the editor is just a little upset that the article got nominated for deletion, which is understandable. It's at AfD, so I don't think any sort of mediation is required; an administrator will close the discussion in a few days regardless. - SudoGhost 08:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm just mostly concerned that she seems to have a history of being rather nasty to people when they challenge her edits or "her" articles. It might be slightly premature, but this does seem to be an ongoing issue with her and I just don't want this to happen the next time an article she created or edited is challenged in any aspect. I understand that she might be angry, but she's basically telling everyone not to touch the article unless the edits meet her specific approval, something she seems to have been doing for a while. She's also been throwing around the "I donate money" thing around for years. I'm just thinking that this is been an ongoing issue for so long that it would be good to use this AfD as a way to address the issues that have been ongoing for a while. It's less about the specific AfD and more about the user's behavior in general over a longer period of time.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The other reason I'm concerned is because I think I might nominate The UKA Press for deletion because it seems to be devoid of any notability. It's associated with notable persons, but the publisher itself has received no awards or any in-depth coverage. I know that the second I nominate it, she's going to go postal.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Lego tires
Thank you for supporting the world's largest manufacturer of tires. --kelapstick(bainuu) 19:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

QR code the 6x6 grid issue ...
Sorry, I am not used to edit the wikipedia pages, I did it just because the information here was wrong. The formula (i/2+j/3)%2=0 mentioned in the picture is correct and corresponds to QR code definition what you can check for example at http://raidenii.net/files/datasheets/misc/qr_code.pdf page 50.

On the contrary this formula has vertical period 4 pixels and 4 does not divide 6. Beleive me, or check it personally. Least common multiple of the pattern periods is 12 vertically and 6 horizontaly. I expect inteligent reader would find the 6x6 information to be a bug, but why to confuse him?

So my question is what is the source of the information about the 6x6 grid? I would guess the source is ... somebody translated the math to the pictures and miscalculated it.

Hippo.69 (talk) 22:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC) Hippo.69

QR code the 6x6 grid issue ...
Sorry, I am not used to edit the wikipedia pages, I did it just because the information here was wrong. The formula (i/2+j/3)%2=0 mentioned in the picture is correct and corresponds to QR code definition what you can check for example at http://raidenii.net/files/datasheets/misc/qr_code.pdf page 50.

On the contrary this formula has vertical period 4 pixels and 4 does not divide 6. Beleive me, or check it personally. Least common multiple of the pattern periods is 12 vertically and 6 horizontaly. I expect inteligent reader would find the 6x6 information to be a bug, but why to confuse him?

So my question is what is the source of the information about the 6x6 grid? I would guess the source is ... somebody translated the math to the pictures and miscalculated it.

Hippo.69 (talk) 23:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC) Hippo.69

BTW: The picture File:QR Ver3 Codeword Ordering.svg describing the bit order is misleading as well, because when going down, the two columns of 4 squares should be shifted the other way (as can be seen in D13, E1, E23, ...). Mentioning the order of traversal of all squares, and skipping functional patterns simplyfies description.

Please comment on Talk:Turkish people
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Turkish people. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 16:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to join discussions on Talk:Cydia
Hi! Since you've edited Cydia, you might be interested in joining the current discussions at Talk:Cydia about sourcing and content issues. Thanks! Dreamyshade (talk) 10:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

My shiny thing
Thank you so much, Sudo! That was very kind of you. I tend to do AfDs only sporadically as they are usually quite labour intensive and sometimes boringly acrimonious when the creators have a lot of personal investment in them + a massive misunderstanding about how Wikipedia works. Meanwhile, I see that the references I supplied at Articles for deletion/Sri Siddhartha Medical College actually refer to the other Siddhartha Medical College. Doh! Nevermind, I've added them there, so they won't go to waste.:) Have a great holiday season and all the best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Rlbeers
Thanks for letting me know your concerns. If the spam links were added in quick succession, and I had seen the talk page, I would have waited. However, about sixteen hours after the first warning the user continued to add spam links. Considering that history, I blocked as a preventative measure.  bibliomaniac 1  5  19:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Stanley Salmons
I find a lot of the background of this article to be quite disturbing. I am not entirely convinced of the good faith of some of the editors involved. I am not sure what to do about it, and will probably simply ignore it, as that is what i usually do in order to prevent drama, but I would appreciate your opinion on this. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt that there's good faith at the discussion, probably just a lot of frustration (I'm honestly not sure why or where it's coming from, but it certainly seems to be there). That said, I'd much prefer to have the AfD discussion be about the article itself, rather than having to address accusations of "waging war" against the article and how saying that an article isn't notable somehow turns into "thoughtless disparaging and ridicule of people". - SudoGhost 01:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * sue, dropping by-- you were right to doubt the neutrality of the editor who introduced the article--even their articles on notable subjects have major problems. But Sudo is right that being too vociferous about it can be counterproductive. What helps here is calmness, and it requires more than COI to justify a claim of bad faith.  DGG ( talk ) 16:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Trademark
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Trademark. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 17:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 18:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)