User talk:Besieged/Archive 1

Welcome
'''A welcome from Primate#101 '''

Hi,, Welcome to Wikipedia! Hello, bonjour, salut, privyet, konichiwa, shalom, hola, salve, sala'am, bonjourno, and hi! I'm Primate#101. I noticed that you were new and/or have yet to receive any messages so I just thought I'd pop in to say "hello". We're glad to have you in our community! I hope you like this place &mdash; I sure do &mdash; and want to stay. Wikipedia can be a little intimidating at first, since it's so big but we won't bite so Be Bold and get what you know down in microchips! If you do make a mistake, that's fine, we'll assume good faith and just correct you: it'll take a few seconds maximum! I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make goofy mistakes, here is what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful. If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you. Here are a few links to get you started:


 * If you haven't already, drop by the New user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
 * Always sign your posts on talk pages! That way, others will know who left which comments. You can sign your name using three tildes (~). If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * Simplified Ruleset
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Wikipedia Glossary
 * And remember:


 * Be Bold!,
 * Don't let grumpy users scare you off.,
 * Learn from others,
 * Play nicely with others, and
 * Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!.


 * If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.
 * If you're bored and want to find something to do, try the Random page button in the sidebar, or check out the Open Task message in the Community Portal.

Happy Wiki-ing!
 * P.S. I'm happy to help new users. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :)

Primate#101

Re: Thanks
Hi Besieged, no worries ... it was a very interesting article. Graham 87 03:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

GoalRef
Just a courtesy note to say the revert to GoalRef that you restored is now the subject of an AN section ("Dennis Brown's reverting of 'socks/trolls' using Twinkle"), just in case you missed it and wanted to comment. If not, then thanks for restoring it anyway. Tim98Seven (talk) 01:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 19:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

edit summaries
Not sure why I need an edit summary when one click will reveal exactly what I changed and a second will reveal why I changed it, namely, on the Depiction to Jesus page I took out a see-also link that was a redirect to Depiction of Jesus. 71.200.129.102 (talk) 18:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It would have taken you less than 10 seconds

So did your two clicks, surely. 71.200.129.102 (talk) 04:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * otherwise you are very likely find unsubstantiated edits reverted, with cause.

What pray tell would be the cause for restoring a go-read-this-for-more-information link that is in fact a redirect back to the original page? 71.200.129.102 (talk) 15:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Nov. 2012 request for uninvolved admin/editor
I need assistance with the below request for an uninvolved editor or admin. b e s i e g e d talk 23:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * ( Comment from uninvolved editor ) I believe that DANE YOUSSEF's user page is inappropriate for the Wikipedia on a number of levels, particularly in regards to WP:UP, as it seems to fit the definitions in WP:UP and WP:UP, however given my involvement in the deletion requests for two articles this user has written, I feel I risk COI or similar claims if I were to address the user directly or add the ((_NOINDEX_)) tag myself. Personally, I find the majority of it to be juvenile, in poor taste, irrelevant, promotional, and/or too reminiscent of a blog or Facebook page; some of it I find vaguely offensive or simply undesirable to read, and as a result would rather just see the vast majority of it deleted, as I feel it reflects poorly on the image of Wikipedia editors, but thought it better to seek uninvolved consensus so as to avoid appearing aggressive or somehow vindictive.

Oh, and the page for his sockpuppet (inactive for about a year), USER:DANE_RAMADAN_YOUSSEF isn't really any better--and actually shows what could be construed as COI for his editing of movie and TV related pages, as he admits there he writes reviews for such--as well as conflicting with the previously mentioned page, for example the former claims he has never done any drugs, the latter states he has.

His second sockpuppet, User:SURFUR (also idle for a little over a year now) is just as bad as DANE YOUSSEF's is, as it is nearly identical.


 * I've noindexed all three userpages, as they all seem to me to be inappropriate in some way. I've also warned all three accounts. You might like to consider taking the whole thing to the admins noticeboard to get some more input on whether it would be appropriate to take some action (such as deleting the pages or blocking the users) in regards to the other issues you have highlighted above. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:39, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Vincent Bezuidenhout and template:COI
As I have pointed out on the Talk:Vincent Bezuidenhout, template:COI specifically says


 * The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. Once these are addressed the COI tag should be removed.

You have not done that, instead leaving a general note making a case that the subject of the article has edited it. I am persuaded by your reasoning, but that's irrelevant - it still isn't "specific issues that are actionable within the content policies". That template is there not to flag user conduct, but to point to bad prose that's ended up that way because of its origin. The article a minimal stub, and I simply don't see any specific issues that can be addressed, beyond the mere fact of existence of the article, which we have another process for (as you know, because you've taken it there). Morwen (Talk) 15:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Please stand by Reply is forthcoming, time for formulation currently limited by work demands. b e s i e g e d talk 16:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Replied I have replied to this at Talk:Vincent_Bezuidenhout. b e s i e g e d talk 17:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Greek Fire
I put it back and now cited it, you can find the book at: http://books.google.com/books/about/Voyages_of_discovery.html?id=sSR_4paxIqsC MarkoPolo56 (talk) 15:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback at user talk:Maschen
Replied. Maybe you want to review your post? Best regards, M&and;Ŝc2ħεИτlk 21:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Whisperback
00:43, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Ckspoiler SPI report — more info needed ASAP
Hi. I'm one of the clerks at the sockpuppet investigation (SPI) page. Just a heads-up regarding your recent SPI request regarding and his suspected sockpuppet  — you need to go back to the request page (Sockpuppet investigations/Ckspoiler) and supply specific diffs supporting your case. If you don't do this in a timely manner, your SPI request will most likely be closed without any action being taken. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:21, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Sorry about that! Looks like I was trying to juggle one too many things at a time! be siege d talk 08:14, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

kevin clifton
hello 'besieged' you seem extremely interested in my entry. unfortunately I do not have evidence of Kevin's infidelity and I hope you can appreciate that this is almost impossible to refer to on the internet. he has done his best to cover up most of his previous marriage to Clare. however you can still find photos of them together if you put in their names on google images this is the best I can do. What I have written is absolutely true. I am also someone who tries to do the right thing and feel this information should be public. Dirtylittlesecret99 (talk) 20:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Unecyclopedic entries involving negative, unsourced information to biographies of living persons is not acceptable, and will always be reverted. Edits to pages regarding living persons must conform to WP:BLP. Please also see WP:NOTSCANDAL. Thank you. be siege d talk 20:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Interesting because when I look at the pages of other famous figures it seems there are many many negative references to their lifestyle choices and life decisions they seem to be left there quite happily. I also don't 'suffer fools' so ill bid you good day and I hope that you find a more interesting way to spend your Thursday nights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dirtylittlesecret99 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Apparently you missed the key phrase "unsourced": try reading the policies linked above. be siege d talk 21:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Locust Grove Virginia
Besieged,

I deleted the info on the Locust Grove, King and Queen County page because there is NO Locust Grove in King and Queen County. The only Locust Grove in the state of Virginia is located in Orange County...I know, I live there. I entered this information when I attempted to delete the page of the fictitious town. Additionally parts of Wikipedia confuse the towns of Locust Grove and Locust Dale which are both in Orange county about 25 miles away from each other, but that's another story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnnyReb67 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I do understand and greatly appreciate your desire to help keep the Wikipedia factual and accurate, however there is a process for deleting articles that must be followed, as blanking of content - especially in otherwise long established articles - will always be viewed as vandalism. If the article in question truly is inaccurate or inappropriate, please use the established mechanisms available with either WP:AFD or WP:PROD (whichever is most appropriate). You can also nominate it as a candidate for speedy deletion if appropriate. Once again, thank you for your efforts and contributions! be siege d talk 22:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Seeing this, I decided to investigate, and I've come to the same conclusion as JohnnyReb67 did. Your comments would be welcome at Articles for deletion/Locust Grove, King and Queen County, Virginia, if you're at all interested in participating.  Nyttend (talk) 05:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Protecting your userpage
Perhaps you've already seen: your userpage got semiprotected because the software doesn't have the ability to put PC on userspace pages. I just now tried putting PC on a mainspace page and moving it to userspace, but the PC magically disappeared! Meanwhile, note that you could have the page fully protected in a way that you could still edit it: you could put your entire userpage code into a .js page (since only admins can edit another user's .js pages), transclude it onto the userpage, and then request full protection for the userpage. Nyttend (talk) 04:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you very kindly! Sorry if trying to PC the userpage was at all frustrating, but hey, we both learned something, right? :) That's a great idea though about transcluding a .js page, I'll have to research that a little later and see if I can make it work. Your efforts and thoroughness are greatly appreciated! be siege d talk 17:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Edits
What's wrong with my edits?98.169.63.91 (talk) 20:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If you're not an Administrator (which you either are not, or you need a reminder about editing when not logged in), you don't have permission to remove maintenance templates, period. be siege d talk 20:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Some trolls who can't restrain themselves
I see you live in USA so obviously have no idea what real fish and chips are all about. stcik to editing Wikis about hot dogs'n'suds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.253.16.147 (talk) 19:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

DIA
Are you out of your mind? I received a constructive criticism from one of the editors and I merely added an additional source to more closely match the article's wording. That is NOT vandalism. You're acting like a disoriented bot.Please reinstate my changes.--Sdverv (talk) 19:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, thanks to your poor attitude, I will do no such thing. You can calm down and slow your roll for a second, consider the fact that I reverted your edit because, at a glance, in the midst of heavy vandalism, I thought your edit looked like a defacement similar to what others had been doing in other articles, and made an error. If you had been able to relax and approach what was fairly clearly an honest mistake like an adult, instead of having and a fit and hurling insults like a child, I would have been inclined to do just as you have asked, would have being the operative phrase. be siege d talk 20:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggest you turn off your half-witted anti-vandalism application and reinstate my edits.--Sdverv (talk) 20:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And I suggest you revert your attitude and get over yourself. be siege d talk 20:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * When I wrote the first message, I had no idea everything was done by a software. And I hope you will forgive me if I'm not catering enough to your ego. In case you have not noticed, I have been dying cleaning up and updating that article for weeks - pleasing you is the least of my concerns as I try to keep an eye on anonymous IPs that have a history making erroneous edits while the article is featured on the main page (also thanks to me).--Sdverv (talk) 20:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Shows what you know, then, as everything is NOT done via software. Likewise, pleasing an editor with a poor attitude who seems to think he owns an article is the least of my concerns. You edit one article space/topic/theme, I fix several dozen - or even hundreds - of instances of vandalism a day, and have no time for hot-heads who fly off the handle at the drop of a hat because their precious edit was accidentally reverted, which they could fix themselves with a single click, and could have explained adequately here in a single sentence not filled with vitriol. be siege d talk 20:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes I could fix it with a single click but given my previous reverts, that would constitute edit warring - the kind of lack of civility I tend to avoid despite your arguments to the contrary. That is the only reason I asked you to correct your mistake yourself. Lastly, I am familiar with WP:OWN and I don't think promptly updating a paragraph with reliable sources counts as that. I may figure prominently in the article's edit history but that is less due to my ownership of it, than due to the fact that very few people have taken interest in making contributions aside from changing around semantics.--Sdverv (talk) 20:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Still... I admit was too eager to criticize you - apologies.--Sdverv (talk) 20:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I accept your apology, and offer my own sincerely for my error. be siege d talk

Guy Pearce Edit
Hello, Besieged. I see that you have edited the Guy Pearce page back to before. Unfortunately, I think this is a mistake. It hasn't been recalled that Guy Pearce appeared in the movie The Ghost and the Darkness along with the upcoming Poltergeist film. Can you explain your edit? 98.195.166.129 (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello! I reverted your edit because no explanation was provided in the edit summary, and so, from an IP-only account, it appeared as if it might be vandalism. I did just now check and do not in fact see any immediate references to him appearing in those movies, so, speaking for myself, would not revert another removal of that content, but you do need to be sure you provide a factual edit summary when making such changes. My sincere apologies for any trouble it might have caused you, however an anti-vandalism patroller (like myself) can revert as many as hundreds of edits in just an hour or two, depending on how heavy vandalism is at that time, and we do not generally have time for fact-checking, etc., but rather leave that to other editors, usually those who are actively invested in the content of a specific article: in cases like this one, all I saw was that content that had been in the article for some days (besides the addition of a source, the last prior edit was on the 28th, and is thus probably already sourced for validity) is removed by an IP-only account with no explanation. Thank you, though, for your efforts and contributions! We hope you'll decide to stick around and continue to contribute! be siege d talk 23:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I apologize for not putting an explanation on it. 98.195.166.129 (talk) 22:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Ashkenazi Jews
Why did you revert my edit? The source contained the information needed to support the two sentences that have had citation needed requests since April. Did you read the source or just automatically revert a change made by an anonymous user? I am sure of the change, I reviewed the source and will remake my edit. Please review the source before again reverting my edit. Alatari (talk) 05:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Here is the source verbatim (emphasis added by me that supports the unattributed sentences): Abstract Geneticists' view of ‘population isolates’ as bearing special utility for research often translates into the targeting of such groups as study popuations. This paper aims to outline the prevalence and structure of reference to one such group—that of the Jews—in genetic research publications. The paper uses three prevalence scores, calculated on the basis of a search of the PubMed database, conducted in September–October 2002. A systematic comparison to other population groups shows that in relation to the population size and in relation to the general bioscientific reference to this group, Jews are over-represented in human genetic literature, particularly in mutation-related contexts. This pattern is interpreted as representing geneticists' interest in Jewish communities, which are comparatively endogamous yet sizeable. It is also attributed to geneticists' access to Jewish communities, which is facilitated by the participation of Jewish scientists that alleviates ethical concerns as well. The geographical proximity of the largest Jewish communities to major research centers, and previous acquaintance with the genetic paradigm that many Jewish persons possess, further enhance this trend. The paper ends by pointing at potential extra-medical implications of this increased prevalence. © 2004 Wiley-Liss, Inc. Alatari (talk) 05:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

From now on refer to my user account on this matter. Alatari (talk) 05:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Assassin's creed 4 PS4 release date uk
Hi

I changed the date to 22nd November as this is the date that Ubisoft(UK) has on its own website as the release date.

If you go to Ubisoft UK site and go to the Assassins Creed page, then to Preorder at other retailers it say 22rd November.

What have I do wrong?

192.109.190.88 (talk) 17:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You need to do a proper citation is all: simply ref-linking to Ubisoft's main page doesn't really suffice. For one, it looks a bit like spam or advertising when linking solely and directly to a top-level commercial domain as you did.


 * Another problem, besides looking like advertising, is the ref's you did weren't really done thoroughly per WP:CITEHOW, and the Reliable Sources policy, which states that media - even if not available online - must be archived in some form. One of the best ways to do this with a website is via WebCitation.org, which will allow you to create and store archived snapshots of a webpage that are suitable for use in references.


 * Additionally, content on a website home page is not really a good source, even when archived, as it is so often subject to change at a whim. What you really need to be citing or ref-linking to is a specific article or sub-page containing an official release date announcement or similar, be it from Ubisoft's own website or another. For a good example of the proper way to do this for an article about a game, please see the MechWarrior: Living Legends entry, and look at how the release date announcements are archived, referenced and formatted properly, referring to a specific page containing a specific and official release announcement that was correctly formatted and archived.


 * Example:
 * On December 26, 2009, an open beta (version 0.1.0) was released via BitTorrent and other distribution methods.


 * actually looks like this


 * {| class="wikitable"


 * On December 26, 2009, an open beta (version 0.1.0) was released via BitTorrent and other distribution methods.
 * }
 * }


 * and creates this:




 * at the bottom of the page.


 * Thank you, though, both for your efforts as well as your patience and maturity in the way you addressed the issue, and please don't be discouraged! I sincerely hope you'll continue to help us make the Wikipedia great, it's just we have some rules and policies we all need to abide by if we're going to keep it factual and relevant, and they can be a little imposing for new users. If you ever need help, don't ever hesitate to ask! be siege d talk 19:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi thanks for the info.192.109.190.88 (talk) 22:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You're very welcome! be siege d talk 22:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

write by some one
hey you have edit me some time but i thing my english is maibe a little hard to understand for naroww mind native english but maibe some one can make that one understanding for naroww mind people and so i thing it better to do not erase jusqua some one make a true edit and make that undestanding ( maibe is one forum of wiki can make stock of that and some people who reade can discut about how make the diference betwent understang by some to understanding by a lot and maibe discut about translate some part of french article in english because a lot is say who is dont in the english one but not me my englis is stil a hard but if no body wand i make and even if it is in bad english  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.194.102.171 (talk) 21:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Beyond the thinly veiled insult, I haven't the faintest clue what you're trying to say, except "please stop undoing my unintelligible edits": if you can't compose and write in clear, readily understood English, you should not be editing the English Wikipedia. be siege d talk 21:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

i dont want to make "Beyond the thinly veiled insult" but maibe my vocabulari is bad so i will speack in my first language and you use a friend or a machine for translation Je vais ésaié d'être très clair; je posède des information prècice dans ma langue maternelle je les ai transmit à wikipédia il sont éventuelement un peu dure à comprendre car écrit dans un mauvais anglais mais si vous faîte un petit effort de compréhention vous pouvez les comprendre certe difficilement  donc j'ai uninilatéralement décidé de les metre pour qu'un jour éventuelement vous  ou une autre persone puisse les comprendre, les aprendre les retransmetre dans une langue anglaise correct et accécible à tous. Certe il serait plus intérèsant de les metre à un endroit de discution par exemble un forum qui servirait à polimique sur ce qui doit être modiffié pour le rendre compréhensible à la majorité;mais avec les connaissance que je possède sur wikipédia actuelement soit je ne c connîs pas ce lieu soit ce lieu n'existe pas et donc deux posibilité soit  j'éxige de votre part de me montrez cela soit je vous demande d'en transmetre la demande aux administrateur pour qu'il le crée cela étant dit je rapelle que porté une accussation de faire une menace voilé sur des mot écrite dans votre langue par un étranger relativement peu à l'aise dans votre langue est siource de calomnisation car si un étranger est capable de faire une menace voilé dans une langue étrangère qui je vous le rappel est très difficile ne peut signifié que deux chose soit il vous trompe et vous fait croire à son incapacité soit vous vous trompé la premiers est plus probable mais l'importance de nos propre jugement est tel que la majorité absolue choici de sous évaluéc les probalité de la premiers voir de niez l'éxistance de la seconde qui vus ma faibilité n'être que la deuxieme et entrainez ainsi l'existence de la possible troisieme mais surtous cela me démontre un fait vous ête abitué a parlez anglais et que les étranger fasse tous pour parlez anglais cela est un défaut courent chez les americain et entre amis je pense le pire de tous pour vous en guérire je vous propose d'envisagé un possible voyage dans un pays étranger ou vous tenterez de ne jamais parlez la langue anglaise pour vous rentre compte de la grande diversité des langue et ainsi comprendre plus facilement ce que je dissai et dit et dirai. bien petit expliquation finis you can anwers in english if you want — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.194.102.171 (talk) 00:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Obviously english is not their first language... when they said 'narrow-minded' what they really meant was one-minded aka 'monolingual' if we want to be charitable (or maybe they really meant narrow-minded ... hard to tell since they obviously don't have a solid grasp on the language they are attempting to communicate in, eh?). I agree that they should not be making any edits directly into any articles on English wikipedia, because their English is not yet up to minimal quality standards.  However, why didn't you suggest they stick their comments on the article talkpage?  Preferably in side-by-side french and english versions, so that fluent bilingual editors of said articles could notice the new stuff on the article talkpage, and then edit the mainspace article accordingly.  I guess you could argue that seemingly-gibberish on the talkpage is just as disruptive as seemingly-gibberish on the mainspace, but that seems harsh.  Especially so, since many ESL speakers can *read* English far better than they can *generate* their own English (schools in other nations teach English-from-a-book to students that have never heard a native English speaker... and while it is difficult to teach sentence-production by such a mechanism, it is reasonably feasible to teach sentence-consumption).  Here is what they said, as far as I can grok.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:03, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not suggesting you should have taken the time to perform this translation yourself, Besieged. Or bother fiddling with notoriously-awful machine-translation of the French, which I myself was totally unwilling to bother with.  On the other hand... it seems a shame to turn away a willing editor.  Probably there *is* stuff on the french wikipedia which is not listed here, simply because of the language barrier.  What about the chinese wikipedia, and so on?  *Is* there a translate-my-ESL-please forum, or anything like that?  If not... shouldn't there be?  I would like for you, in your journeys as a wikiCop, to have some kind of button, so that when you see a bunch of gibberish during your wikiCop patrols, but your statistical-english-detector says it has a 50-50 chance of being *some* kind of broken english, you flag it for review by a GoodCop that specializes in translation.  Prolly we already know what the editor's native language is from their username, or in anon submissions like this, from geoip or traceroute (not perfect of course -- the latter claims they are one hop from Frankfurt Germany ... but close enough for our purposes).  Anyways, whether their contributions belong in the article talkpage, or in some specialized AfT (articles-for-translation) bureaucracy, they seem authentically interested in helping.  Dealing with them is not the job of a wikiCop, but for somebody else.  How to pass along the work, so it is not lost?  74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:03, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

About blanking by page creators
Hi there. I noticed that you warned User:Raerai for removing the speedy deletion tag on his/her article. I did the same thing the other day, and another editor tipped me off that page blanking by the sole creator means something different than blanking by anyone else. It's apparently a recognized way of saying, "Okay, go on and delete my page." If you see this, you're then free to add the db-g7 speedy deletion template to the blanked page. Thought I'd pass it on. Thanks for doing RC patrol! DoorsAjar (talk) 20:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ahah, thanks for the heads up! I knew that a page creator was allowed to blank their own page (if not too many others have contributed valid content), but not so much that they could blank a page AND the speedy deletion template. Thank you, too, for your RC patrol efforts, I've come up on many edits I was about to revert, only to find you beat me to the punch :) The more eyes, the better, that's for sure! be siege d talk 20:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And you've beaten me to the punch at least as many times.  As for the "blanking by creator" thing, there are times when I wish I could go to Wikipedia School, because there are so many subtleties of implementation that I don't pick up from scanning policy pages. DoorsAjar (talk) 20:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Heh, I hear you on that! Sometimes I find myself scanning policy to check on what I want to or think I should do, and start wondering when someone will get around to creating a Wikipeda Bar Exam for aspiring WikiLawyers and WikiCops. be siege d talk 21:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The bar exam is intended to keep people *out* of the lawyering biz. 'Not licensed to practice law in the state of $foo.'  See my comments above.  Most vandalism and spam are obvious; very rarely is there a need for wikilawyering, or even an experienced wikicop.  But there is little structure to encourage task-division (easy-n-obvious reverts for the begginer wikiCops... and a flag-for-my-backup button right next to -- preferably in front of -- the revert-hammer button).  There is also little structure to encourage teamwork.  You and DoorsAjar cannot tell when the other wikiCop has already handled a situation, or when the situation was tricky and might need a second pair of eyeballs.  I'd like the tools to support teamwork.  Right now teamwork requires *extra* work on the part of the wikiCop -- and thanks btw to DoorsAjar for putting forth the extra effort, and leaving you a note on a talkpage.  But why not make something like a CB radio with a police-band for wikiCops?  Just like in real life, civilians with police-scanners can listen in.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Accipitrimorphae
First of all the put of those ta there is a valid and up to date and it conflicts with the page. The evidence you are using here are some out of dated information. If you have read the latest genetic studies (which can be found in the reference section), NW vultures are no longer seem to be related to storks. While it is possible that Accipitrimorphae and Accipitriformes might be the same thing, to state the article might not contain any actual fact is wrong to say if provided with enough references alone. Another thing is to say your own experience as a state and federally licensed falconer is considered to be original information which goes against the wiki guidelines. Lastly what about OW vultures? Are they not raptors too?--4444hhhh (talk) 23:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * You're clearly missing some things here, including the basic courtesy of not engaging in edit-warring, not removing maintenance tags without discussion or corrective action, not acting as if you own an article, and not engaging in rules-lawyering for the purposes of shutting down a discussion or invalidating another persons edits.


 * Particularly, you'll note that nowhere did I claim the article contains no factual information, merely that I tagged it to say that there are QUESTIONS about SOME of the factual accuracy, after creating a talk page to that effect in order to spur discussion, whereupon you then blithely and without concern removed the maintenance tags without even attempting to engage in discussion, either on the article talk page or on mine. I provided valid, viable, reputable and reliable 3rd party sources listed as up to date by the publishers in my talk section: just because you've read or cited newer information does not make it fact, nor eliminates the question as to the factual veracity of the debated claims.


 * Secondly, my listing of my experience as a falconer was NOT a "source", as you'll note I did NOT use it as a reference in an article, I merely mentioned it to cite that I'm not an amateur who doesn't know what they're talking about or who has just read a couple of blog posts on birds. Just because I HAVE experience in a subject is NOT a conflict of interest, nor does it automatically invalidate my assertions, especially when I can provide references to back up those assertions as being at least valid questions of fact in a disputed and not-remotely-settled question: nowhere did I supply "original research" based solely on my own claims, and even if I did do so, that rule only applies to information cited in an article, not in a talk page discussion regarding factual accuracy of an article.


 * Finally, no, OW vultures are NOT raptors. They are scavengers and carrion eaters, not predators who "seize their prey with force". Just because people commonly misidentify vultures for raptors, just because some people mistakenly lumped them in together in the past, and just because people in the southern U.S. misuse the word "buzzard" to refer to vultures does NOT make it so. Vultures are not predatory birds, whereas accipiters are by their very definition, Q.E.D., vultures are not accipiters.

be siege d talk 00:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I apologize for the failing to provid editing summary as my internet had a blip so it must have failed in registring the text. That I will admit to that.


 * While it maybe true that you did not use your own experience to source the article, but why put a tag questioning the facts? I assume you meant the sources, if so why do.it if the work from scholars has been cited and reference? At least leave a merge suggestion then as "Accipitrimorphae" seems to equal to "Accipitriformes".


 * As for the raptors, I think there must be a misunderstanding. Taxonomically vultures are "raptors" as they are descended as such. This goes for Old World vultures as they are nested heavily in the Accipitridae. NW vultures are the same case, just scientists have yet to found the ancestral accipitrimorph. You are going by the logic of behavior and word definition alone. Under your logic, that is like saying the giant panda is not a bear because it is not called such, or birds are not dinosaurs because dinosaurs are "terrible lizards". User:4444hhhh

Speedy
MPs are notable. See WP:POLITICIAN DGG ( talk ) 23:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Might want to read that policy yourself: winning a popularity contest does not inherently make someone notable, especially someone who lives in a country that does not speak English, and who has no notable English-language press-coverage. And I quote:
 * "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article.""
 * Otherwise, every person who has ever been elected to anything would be "notable", thus completely devaluing the word itself, and turning the Wikipedia into little more than a giant social directory of politicians. be siege d talk 00:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * He is a member of the Senate of Pakistan, analogous to the a member of the US Senate. He is not a local politician.  He is not an unelected politician.  WP:POLITICIAN clearly states, "Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature." (emphasis mine).  Bgwhite (talk) 07:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I point out further that enWP covers the entire world on equal terms, non-English speaking countries as well as English-Speaking countries. Sources similarly may be in any language. The " English" in English Wikipedia" refers only to the language in which it is written. Obviously our contributors tend to write more on topics in their national language, but this is considered a WP:Cultural bias we are working to overcome  DGG ( talk ) 09:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Know what English Wikipedia means
I am deeply concerned over some of your comments today, some of which could be seen as bordering on bigotry.

Bgwhite (talk) 07:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) You have a misconception of what English Wikipedia means.
 * I quote from you on above talk message winning a popularity contest does not inherently make someone notable, especially someone who lives in a country that does not speak English, and who has no notable English-language press-coverage.
 * I quote from you on Articles for deletion/7½ Phere, Relevance and notability of a non-English-language movie not shown outside of India on the English Wikipedia. No sources - much less primarily English-language sources - have been cited for why it is notable other than existing as a movie production, nor demonstrating notability to people who live outside of India.
 * This does NOT mean we cover only English related subjects. You will not find anything saying only English sources or English only subjects.  Per WP:GNG "Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language".  Per WP:NONENG, "Citations to non-English sources are allowed".  As long as the article's subject meets WP:GNG, they can get an article.
 * 1) Saying Pakistan is "country that does not speak English" and India doesn't have English language sources borders on bigotry.   India contains the 2nd largest population of English speakers in the world.  Pakistan is 3rd.  They both trail the U.S.
 * 2) Per your edit summary on 71/2 Phere saying, Also, you do not have the authority to remove maintenance tags just because you don't like them  Anybody can remove any maintenance tag they feel are warranted. Authority? As  is an admin, oversighter and a member of arbcom, I would say he has the knowledge to do just about anything rules say he can do.


 * I categorically deny and - and absolutely resent - any implication that I may be a bigot: I definitively am not.


 * "bigot:ˈbiɡət/ noun - a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions."


 * This is absolutely not the case, nor can it be applied to "those of a different race/language/culture". My prime issue is a concern over the Wikipedia becoming an indiscriminate directory of persons/places/things/etc., that are not terribly notable or of relevance to the people most likely to use this encyclopedia, but apparently this is a losing battle I should just give up on and allow any article on any subject relating to anything outside my own nation or language or culture because it's "bigoted" to do otherwise, or to believe that notability can sometimes genuinely be strictly nation-, region- or culture-specific.


 * I believe, however, that my intent has been taken out of context as I apparently failed to communicate myself or my meaning appropriately, for which I offer my sincere apologies to anyone who was offended by any seeming implications. Regardless...


 * I am quite well aware that this Wiki is not meant to cover "only English-related subjects", however that doesn't remove or negate notability guidelines, which 7½ Phere still fails on, IMO. If it had achieved some notability even in India as anything other than a bad romantic comedy, I would have been massively less likely to nominate it for deletion, regardless of the language of the film or the source material, nor if there had been (native, foreign, translated or otherwise) sources indicating notability as per the guidelines. However, with sources and a synopsis like it had, with no indication of why it is notable in cinema for any reason other than existing (which is what the IMDB, as an indiscriminate list of films, is for) I would have nominated it regardless of the country or language of origin: I cited the lack of English sources as a factor only because the existence of such reporting would have lent further credence to the film having been genuinely notable in cinema because it generated enough buzz that the non-Hindi-speaking world had taken note of it. Without such sources, nor any other indication of why it would be relevant to anyone outside of India itself as anything other than yet another non-notable film (of which there are uncounted thousands in every language and nation), I felt it perfectly appropriate to challenge this film deserving an article based on (lack of) notability grounds.


 * "Citations to non-English sources are allowed": I never once claimed otherwise. I merely advocated that having English -language sources, or a source that could assert notability to people of non-European-Indian origin, would be much more convincing that the subject was in fact notable, compared to the dire lack of sources in both the nominations you are questioning. Completely disregarding the language/culture issue, I would have nominated both of these articles had they been about an American movie and politician: the movie just isn't notable. I did miss the "national office" guideline re: politicians, however, which was clearly my mistake, and while I can't say I entirely agree that this Wiki really needs an indiscriminate list of every politician who ever gets elected to any national office in any nation in the world, I'm not going to argue it either, and will on the basis of that policy withdraw (or not contest the withdrawal) of the deletion nomination on notability grounds in that specific case. The article itself, however is still desperately wanting in content and composition, and at least deserves tags to that effect.


 * I'll admit I may have a focus (or call it 'bias', if you prefer) on wanting things in English: I speak English, and this is the English Wikipedia. I speak German, too, and were I to make a habit of editing the DE Wiki, I'd make every effort to cite German-language sources or provide context as to why the subject is relevant to that wiki's users, who I suspect don't feel the need for an article on every bad romantic comedy released in the U.S.. Clearly that isn't official Wiki policy, and while I never claimed it was, I can see in retrospect how one might read it as if I was asserting as much: my mistake. However I don't think its entirely wrong, either, for an editor/patroller to have some emphasis on sources that are themselves relevant- or notable-to, readable, and able to be confirmed as valid & reliable sources by, the typical EN Wikipedia user/editor, especially on topics or new articles likely to attract the attention of RC patrollers: it's easy enough to separate the chaff when the references are in a language I can read coming from sources I can readily validate, versus those in non-English languages from other countries where confirming reliability of the source is made massively more difficult by language, culture and distance barriers.


 * However, never once have I ever debated or called into question foreign language sources, in general or in specific, or nominated an article for relying solely on them, nor have I - so far as I know or have ever intended - nominated any article for the sole reason of covering a non-Western/American/native-English subject, whereas I have nominated plenty of articles like these two you're questioning on a variety of primarily English-language/Western subjects, in similar states of composition/content/notability. My actual intent with the language you question was to indicate that such English-language sources would, in my mind, exponentially increase the validity of notability claims by having been notable enough to receive coverage in a language other than that which is native to the subject's own region-of-origin. As none were readily found - besides one that did not actually provide content of any value or establish any notability - I cited it in my reasoning because the lack of such English-language coverage and any other coverage from sources that *I* can read - and determine to be reliable, upstanding and verifiable 3rd party sources - indicated that the film was not relevant enough to warrant an article.


 * As for DGG, I'll readily admit I didn't go look to see if s/he's an admin, and there wasn't really any reason I should have, since it has been my experience that admins don't generally get directly and immediately involved in these sorts of disputes/issues (except when there is a conflict of interest on their part, which I'm NOT implying is the case here, and am not going to go on a witch hunt to determine one way or the other). While s/he has certainly been granted the ability to do anything the rules say they can, it's also my understanding that admins are typically expected to adhere to the same policies, guidelines and processes outlined for the rest of the community follow and to not typically take unilateral action except in cases of clear/egregious violations of certain policies (such as negative/defamatory/un-sourced BLP material) or after community consensus has been at least attempted, if not actually achieved, and to communicate clearly when and why they took action, including an explanation, not merely to justify their action, but to let the editor(s) in question know that it was an admin action, the grounds it was taken on, what they believe the editor(s) were doing incorrectly: their message to me above did no such thing, merely cited a policy.


 * I know the admins are busy and have plenty to do, both on the wiki and off, but so am/do I, and since we're both volunteers, the courtesy flows both ways: give a curt comment, expect a curt response. After all, the Wiki might remain useful for a few years if all the new-article creators and editors quit and only the admins/patrollers remained, but if all the anti-vandal/RC/speedy-delete patrollers were to quit tonight, the wiki would be overrun by vandals and rendered useless by the end of the month at the latest: in short, editors and patrollers are just as useful, important and necessary as admins, who can't possibly do it all by themselves, therefore it's not really too much to ask for them to identify and explain themselves courteously and patiently (such as Kudpung and MaterialScientist seem to manage to do) to people editing/patrolling in good faith/intent, or at least do more than cite a policy and take unilateral action while not identifying themselves as an admin, particularly if they don't want to editors to treat them like any other editor in a dispute; I'd probably have put more consideration and research into what s/he said - and certainly would have been less incredulous at the tag removal - had they even just identified themselves as an admin instead of just another editor taking ownership of an article/subject/category. I also believe s/he is probably capable of speaking for themselves if they were offended, thought I was out of line, or felt a need to justify their actions. And no, DGG, if you're reading this, it's not a critique or complaint of your interaction with me nor a request for justification, merely a response to the issue as raised by Bgwhite and a justification of my own behavior; I was not offended by the interaction nor do I feel it was inappropriate, only that I would have reacted with more patience and consideration had I felt I was being given the same.


 * Finally, I make no apologies for my assertions re: politicians being little more than popularity contest winners (but if I'm to be fair and intellectually/philosophically honest, in retrospect I suppose that's the sort of thing the wikishould catalog, though I might assert that articles on individual politicians aren't really necessary until or unless they've done something else besides winning an election, and have actual notable actions or a history warranting one, as opposed to appearing in a list of elected politicians in a given place), nor my belief that while notability may not be temporary, it is also not universal: just because this encyclopedia isn't actually printed doesn't mean that it shouldn't have similar standards for inclusion as print versions, i.e. what will actually be useful, relevant, and of interest to the typical reader, instead of trying to be an indiscriminate collection of every bit of trivia that any person might ever want to know.

be siege d talk 00:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Please do not twist my words. I never said you are a bigot.  I said some of which could be seen as bordering on bigotry.  (emphasise mine).  Calling Pakistan and India non-English nations and other countries politicians and films lesser can be seen as bigotry.  You did call a Senator of Pakistan a local political and not notable.  You did imply a film not shown out of India is not notable.  You did imply non-English sources were inferior to English sources.  This could be seen and has been seen as bigotry towards non-English or non-Western countries.
 * I was not meaning offense, just calling something to attention that others do see it as bigotry. I do know this because I've seen people take offense to similar statements as yours.  You said you didn't mean offense toward DGG, but you did not give me the same consideration.
 * I cited the lack of English sources as a factor only because the existence of such reporting would have lent further credence to the film having been genuinely notable in cinema because it generated enough buzz that the non-Hindi-speaking world had taken note of it. and I merely advocated that having English -language sources, or a source that could assert notability to people of non-European-Indian origin, would be much more convincing that the subject was in fact notable  No, this is not true and is once again is seeing English sources as superior.  You need to stop this.  English sources are preferred over non-English, not lesser.   There can be plenty of buzz in sources in other languages and not in English to be notable.  500 million people in India speak Hindi.  230 million residents of Pakistan do think their Senators are important.  1.2 billion Chinese do think their history, pop culture and politicians are important.
 * As for 7½ Phere, it will be kept because there are reliable sources.  It does have English sources.  It does have Hindi sources.  You did not look closely enough.  However, the ½ in the title doesn't make it search engine friendly, thus harder to find sources. Bgwhite (talk) 08:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited James Hewitt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Top Gear UK. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)