User talk:Darkwind/Archive 4

The Signpost: 17 September 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 16:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

interference lithography
I disagree with you about the link. Look for instance at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanoimprint_lithography. There's links to companies at the bottom there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.111.77.145 (talk) 14:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Page Curation newsletter
Hey. This will be, if not our final newsletter, one of the final ones :). After months of churning away at this project, our final version (apart from a few tweaks and bugfixes) is now live. Changes between this and the last release include deletion tag logging, a centralised log, and fixes to things like edit summaries.

Hopefully you like what we've done with the place; suggestions for future work on it, complaints and bugs to the usual address :). We'll be holding a couple of office hours sessions, which I hope you'll all attend. Many thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Per la pagine di TIGR sono stati gli anti - italiani e non anti - fascisti perché questa era un organizzazione terroristica che colpiva qualunque popolo italiano sia fascisti e non. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.14.103.28 (talk) 14:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

hey i need to change this page for a school project, ill change it back right after. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Happygilmorefan99 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Re the Talmud: It's Not a Dispute
What's happening is that the Anti-Christian Talmudists are, at the very least, implying that any criticism of the Talmud is Anti Semitic, explicitly arguing that David Duke is a Christian, etc.. Thus, what's going on is my correcting of the Anti-Christian, Pharisaic Judaism bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickidewbear (talk • contribs) 05:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Babylon is not a "conspiracy theory", or if it is, then so is Ahuriman and Satan. It's part of a belief system and I feel it is totally inappropriate to be singled out as a "conspiracy theory". I've never contributed to WIkipedia before but I just thought I'd correct an obvious error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.107.110.76 (talk) 02:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Latin phrases
I am adding a legitimate phrase to that article. Proud2Bbi (talk) 07:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, and it's also quite passive-aggressive. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 07:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

{User:jkidner]] Hi Darkwind, I intentionally removed this content because I have decided as I am on the board of directors one of the part owners along with Flowers London to change the copyright status from share alike to non free works to try to protect the images from abuse. I have uploaded another version of these images as non free works and I am writing a permission letter now and listing the works to show their new status. Could you help me with getting rid of all the images that are in the share alike category, or am I doing it properly providing I show that I have edited it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkidner (talk • contribs) 14:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

1992 Rose Bowl
I've never attempted to edit a Wikipedia page before and I'm completely confused by the messages you left me claiming I was doing something nefarious.

The information on this page is 100% wrong and I was just trying to correct it. Could you please watch the actual video of this game at the link below. At the 1:40 mark left, you will clearly here Keith Jackson state that Michigan ILB Erick Anderson (#37) and Washington OLB Jaime Fields (#13) were the players of the game. It was NOT Steve Emtman and Billy Joe Hoebert as stated on this page. Please correct. Thank you

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUlGiXYJ0Ms&feature=youtube_gdata_player — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.88.216.253 (talk) 04:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * This and this are links to the actual edits you did -- your changes are highlighted on the right. You'll notice for each change, you changed "Huskies" to "Huskiesiiiiiiio" near the top the page.  When someone adds gibberish to a page, it tends to lead people like myself who watch Wikipedia for "vandalism" to assume that you're just screwing around with the page.  If you legitimately think your changes are accurate, feel free to make the change again but avoid adding gibberish to the page, please.  Thanks! &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 04:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:File names
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:File names. 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, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks, I'm glad you realize I'm not trying to be personal about the article, I'm just really concerned that the article doesn't meet our criteria. As for a reliable source, I'm curious which page you mean, as I looked through the list of sources and didn't see anything that seemed to be a reliable source.  If you could tell me which reference you're referring to, I'd be happy to take a look and revise my opinion.  That being said, the article is pending a deletion discussion -- please do not remove the AfD template from the top of the article, even if you disagree with deleting it.  If you disagree with the deletion nomination, please comment on the discussion page instead. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 03:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 October 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 20:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 October 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 20:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Soul Reaper huh
Hi there, I came across your userpage, and noticed one of your boxes says you're a soul reaper, I'm guessing by that you are a fellow Bleach watcher? BlueStars83 (talk) 04:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Heh, yes, I'm a big fan, although I'm way behind on the current season (I think the last episode I saw was 352. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 03:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ahhh, the Xcution/Fullbring saga. Well, you're not too far from the end then. Well, of the animated eps anyways. There's another saga after this one, but it's just comic based I think as there hasn't been any new animated eps for quite a while. –  Blue☆ Stars  83  05:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports. 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, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 October 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 20:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 October 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 10:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. 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) 18:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 November 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 23:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

This is not a newsletter
This is just a tribute.

Anyway. You're getting this note because you've participated in discussion and/or asked for updates to either the Article Feedback Tool or Page Curation. This isn't about either of those things, I'm afraid ;p. We've recently started working on yet another project: Echo, a notifications system to augment the watchlist. There's not much information at the moment, because we're still working out the scope and the concepts, but if you're interested in further updates you can sign up here.

In addition, we'll be holding an office hours session at 21:00 UTC on Wednesday, 14 November in #wikimedia-office - hope to see you all there :). I appreciate it's an annoying time for non-Europeans: if you're interested in chatting about the project but can't make it, give me a shout and I can set up another session if there's enough interest in one particular timezone or a skype call if there isn't. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 November 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 11:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox person
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Infobox person. 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, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 November 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 01:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 November 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 10:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ticker symbols in article leads
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ticker symbols in article leads. 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) 19:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 December 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 20:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Darkwind disappeared
I wonder why. Kaldari (talk) 12:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Heh, I tend to come and go fairly often as my free time patterns change (and interesting stuff comes up to do). It's why I've been around since 2003 but only have ~22K edits (and also why I'd make a terrible RfA candidate, lol). &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 04:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 December 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 21:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force. 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) 20:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Articles for creation newsletter
Delivered 01:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC) by EdwardsBot. If you do not wish to receive this newsletter, please remove your name from the spamlist.

The Signpost: 17 December 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 23:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

An experiment
I'm trying an experiment.

The backlog at Copyright problems is horrific, and frankly, embarrassing.

In a discussion with Moonriddengirl, the goddess of copyright, someone mentioned that they couldn't help out because they weren't an admin.

I wondered if other editors were under the same assumption.

Changing gears slightly, I think it is important for admin to have a working knowledge of copyright issues, as admins have the power to delete articles identified as copyright violations.

It occurred to me that we ought to find out whether prospective admins do have a solid knowledge of copyright issues and it occurs to me that one way to determine that is if editors contemplating becoming an admin work on a couple hundred items in the backlog. This would help establish several useful things:
 * I won't lie, clearing copyright backlogs isn't exciting, but admins are expected to help out with unexciting tasks, so this is one way to see if the candidate is willing to do those types of things
 * Working on clearing out a backlog is an excellent way to develop a knowledge of copyright issues. Without the delete button, you can't accidentally remove something which might turn out to be acceptable, so you can identify issues, clean up where appropriate, and make a recommendation for deletion if that's the best option. Then an admin can make the final call, and will be in a position to opine positively at a future RfA.
 * A major side benefit will be the reduction of the backlog

Brand-new editors may not have the experience with copyright issues to dive in and help out. But someone who has self-identified as interested in being an admin someday, has probably been around long enough to get a feel for copyright issues, and if not that specifically, has been around long enough to know how to proceed carefully.

So I looked at the transclusion of the User box indicating that you would consider becoming an admin someday, and your name was the first on the list.

So my experiment is to see if you might be a candidate to take a stab at looking at some of the item in the backlog.

There's no rush, and you can do it on your own, or you can ask me to be a mentor, (or you can decide that it isn't your cup of tea.) If you are interested, Text Copyright Violations 101 is as close as we have to a user's manual.

But keeping Wikipedia free of copyright violations is one of the most important tasks around, so if you are willing to pitch in, we will be very grateful.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  00:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * An interesting thought. Personally, I'd thought that it more-or-less required a subject-matter expert if not an actual admin, so I'd never really given it a try.  I'd be happy to help out at some point in the next few days. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 01:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, this is great! Just a couple of things to keep in mind:
 * If the material on the Wikipedia page exactly matches another site, that doesn't necessarily mean the Wikipedia site is infringing, it could be that the other site copied from Wikipedia, or it could be that the other site is properly licensed for use.
 * Noticing that the words have been changed a bit is not good enough—close paraphrasing is still problematic.
 * Starting with the very oldest in the list means you may be tackling one that a more experienced reviewer has passed over because it is difficult. Start with a more recent one. If it isn't easy to resolve, move on, there's a lot to do and after you do a few, you'll pick up hints on how to proceed.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  01:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * So I started going through a few, and found some easily resolvable entries, which I merrily went about resolving, but then I noticed that the page policy seems to imply that listings should only be "closed" (including removing any copyvio tag from the article) by actual CP "clerks" -- as I am not officially anyone anything, should I just be noting my investigation under each listing? &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 03:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a good question, and I have asked the expert here. While waiting, I'll take a look at the ones you have done.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  12:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Observations:
 * Re KARNAS (Hevhetia 2011), I agree. Look me a second to find the problem, but you removed the copy-paste and stubified. Track listings are often a false positive, but as a purely factual list with no creativity in the list creation, acceptable, so you were right to leave them.
 * Re Jozef van Wissem similar comments, the lead was a pure copy-paste. In some cases, it would be desirable to reword some of the material in your own words, but I see tow challenges - I think it is generally poor form to use only one source, and it is asking to much to go search for alternative sources, plus this source, while nicely written, is the subjects's own site, and (understandably) promotional in nature, not easily transformed into NPOV language.
 * Re Tamil Nadu State Agricultural Marketing Board (TNSAMB) I agree. Someone copy-pasted something from another Wikipedia article. There are acceptable ways of doing that, but someone had already removed it, so the issue raising the question has been addressed.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  13:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback! I noticed 's response was also positive, so I'll keep at it. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 07:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Re Ugly Creatures Agreed.
 * Re Antenarrative I agree. (While the original version had much of the copied material in quotes, the article had too much as direct quotes. The intervening rewrite has improved that aspect. The goal isn't to remove all quotes, as direct quotes are an important part of a decent article, but to eliminate the ones that are simply used to avoid the work of rewrite.)
 * Re University of the Cordilleras Unlike the two above, where someone else did the work, and you simply confirmed it, on this one you did the heavy lifting. Looks good. I like that you added a section to the talk page. I think it is good practice to do so in many cases. Not always required, but a good practice, especially because someone might see a large section removed, and come back to restore it, not looking carefully at the edit summary. They might do so even when there's a discussion on the talk page, but that will decease the likelihood of an inadvertent and well-meaningreversion.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  14:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Recommendation
I submitted your name here I don't know how long the process takes, but based upon prior examples, a few days.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  15:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 06:37, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

RfA
Might as well make a live formal good luck and inform you of your first support vote, per nom. So good luck and hope you pass. John F. Lewis (talk) 20:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I really appreciate it. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 22:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And you are welcome. Might want to answer Q 4 & 5 though. John F. Lewis (talk) 22:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:CP
Just curious: has the library gotten you the book that you mention at Copyright problems/2012 October 4? Nyttend (talk) 17:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Not yet, it says it's in transit though, so I hope to have it sometime early next week. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 02:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Imitation...flattery
Someone mentioned at the beginning of your RFA that they liked your userpage, so I took a look at it and found that I did too (especially your userbox groupings). Hope you're holding up during hell week; never forget that it's not that important. Good luck, Happy New Year and all the best,  Miniapolis  ( talk ) 23:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I appreciate the support and words of cheer, it definitely helps. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 02:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. 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) 21:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 December 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 06:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Adminship
Though I didn't support you, that's not a reflection on the fact that I think you'll do fine as a sysop. Good luck, and let me be the first to congratulate you! Go  Phightins  !  22:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I plan to take your feedback (as well as everyone else's) very seriously as I grow in my skills as an editor, so please feel free to throw in some advice if you ever have any! &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 22:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Darkwind, I need help with Talk:Conservator_of_the_peace
Mr. LeFande, or someone whom I assume to be Mr. LeFande, is being difficult. He is asserting that he has the right to use his own material in Wikipedia because it's his material (which I believe to be true), and any licensing issues are to be brushed aside because he's a lawyer and I am not.

I believe the material ought to be removed unless he republishes the original sources with a CC-BY-SA-3.0 or GFDL license. Please comment on the talk page... what should be done next? Dpbsmith (talk) 03:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd be happy to chime in. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 03:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Edward G. Robinson
I edited Edward G. Robinson Jr. at least. I just wanted to make Some Like It Hot complete (I also did Billy Gray, Dave Barry and Barbara Drew) It would be nice, if you check that. Thank You! - Clibenfoart 17:08, 4.Jan. 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clibenfoart (talk • contribs) 16:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd be happy to take another look at it. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 03:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks fine now, as far as copyright stuff goes. Make sure you go through and check for typos and other easy fixes, though. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 03:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations


I've closed your RfA as successful. Good luck with your new tools!  Maxim (talk)  22:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on getting the mop! --   LuK3      (Talk)   22:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you! &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 22:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! With 130 supports, that's the most in six months.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  22:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not that it diminishes things at all, but are you sure you're looking at the right line? KTC (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oops, that would be you. Congratulations to you for the number of supports.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  22:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Most this year. Go   Phightins  !  02:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * My congrats as well! I noticed my support came when you had fallen to 70%, and that you steadily climbed back up from there. (Not to imply I was responsible... heh heh.) My best wishes on your adminship!  Jus  da  fax   22:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Congratulations, glad I nominated you now, enjoy your new tools.John F. Lewis (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Congratulations!! I'm sure you'll be great for the project. First of the year and what's even better, I'm no longer the newest admin! KTC (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Congratulations Darkwind. Good luck :) — ΛΧΣ  21  22:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Congrats on becoming the first of the year - let's hope there will be many to follow you! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on being handed the mop! Enjoy your adminship! Greengreengreen  red  00:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

More of a nail-biter than it should've been, but that's water under the bridge. Congratulations, Happy New Year and all the best,  Miniapolis  ( talk ) 02:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Congratulations, enjoy adminship. --LlamaAl (talk) 03:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well done old bean - enjoy the mop! Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!}  (Whisper...) 10:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Quite a tough RfA. Glad you made it. Also nice smiley-face below, I dont think Ive seen that one before.   ☮  Soap  ☮  17:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks to all of you (including those who haven't commented), both those who supported and those who offered thoughtful feedback in opposition. Please feel free to drop by any time to give me advice you all might have, especially those of you with mop-calluses already. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 02:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Generation X page lock
Could you tell us why you locked the Gen X page please? Also could you explain your use of Twinkle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:TW -- on that article? Wikipedia policy is: "it should not be used to undo good-faith changes unless an appropriate edit summary is used.". Thank you. Media67 (talk) 19:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi though I am not Darkwind nor another Sysop, the full protection of the article was called in due to edit warring and content disputes which I can see. Such actions require a full protection as it appears auto confirmed and un registered users are in the case. Also Darkwind's use of twinkle is justified. The page was just protected so to save time he use twinkle to add the full protection template which from my experience is almost adopted by all administrators. You may dismiss my comments even though I got the information from the protection logs, I am sure Darkwind would be more than happy to explain more to the reasoning as I am can not get into his head. John F. Lewis (talk) 19:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your explaination. However, the recent revert/edits don't qualify under Wikipedia definition of an "edit war".  We need to rely on the policy not somebody's loose interpretation of it.  Otherwise it's not a policy. Here's the discusion that led up to the lock:


 * Additional, reliable sources have been added to the subject you disagreed with - please do not continue to engage in edit warring. --Danteferno (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not edit warring by Wikipedia's standards. Media67 (talk) 00:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, it is edit warring, and you were WARNED about it by an ADMINISTRATOR on the WP:WN 2 months back. Do you remember that discussion, and what you were told? I'm going to ask you again: Stop edit warring, and stop removing sourced content. --Danteferno (talk) 02:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually it's not edit warring Here's the Wikipedia policy: WP:3RR "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing other editors—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See below for exemptions". Your accusation doesn't meet the Wikipedia criteria of three (3) revert edits in 24 hours. Do you understand the policy? Please stop exagerrating again. If you have a problem with the facts about this particular edit then bring it up on an Admin page. Your edit wont hold againt the facts.Media67 (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * To my knowledge the reason was a selected option, it could actually be due to the content dispute. If you disagree with my reason. Just wait for Darkwijd. If I see him on the IRC I'll ping him. John F. Lewis (talk) 19:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright thanks, I appreciate your assistance with this matter.Media67 (talk) 20:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for checking in. I protected the page upon request at requests for page protection, after examining the history and talk page of the article.


 * The definition of an edit war is "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion." You and  reverted each other three times without any communication (other than edit summaries, which don't generally count), so that certainly qualifies as overriding each other's contributions without discussion.  Neither of you broke the three revert rule, but that's not required for a situation to be an edit war. So, this is a 4-day break for you guys to actually talk about what you want to see in the article, and why, and discuss these things on the merits.


 * Please note that just because his version is the one that ended up "on top" when the page was protected doesn't mean that I or any other admin endorse his version over yours -- I just put a stop to the back and forth so you guys can actually talk about it. If you think 4 days is a little too long, I can probably shorten it up a bit, but you guys have got to talk about things and work together or the article will end up a mess.


 * Also, the only thing I used TW for was to add the protection template. I didn't revert either of you (that would have been inappropriate since I was evaluating a request for page protection). &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 22:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Additional comment: I see that you guys have started talking on your own talk page, which is better than not talking at all -- but if you're going to talk about the article, it's usually much better to have that discussion on the article's talk page instead of one of your user talk pages, so others can see the discussion and participate. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Is this the correct definition of an edit war: "There is a bright line known as the three-revert rule (3RR). A revert means undoing the actions of another editor. The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period". Media67 (talk) 01:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * That's a partial (but almost complete) definition of the three-revert rule. Breaking that rule is a form of edit warring, but not all edit wars break that rule.  From farther down the same page: "Editors who engage in edit warring are liable to be blocked from editing to prevent further disruption. While any edit warring may lead to sanctions, there is a bright-line rule called the three-revert rule (3RR), the violation of which often leads to a block." (emphasis mine)


 * A little bit farther down the page: "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit-warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." (emphasis in original)


 * Basically, if you or Danteferno had broken 3RR, not only would I have protected the page, but I would have blocked whichever one (or both) of you had reverted a 4th time, probably for 24 hours. Think of it this way: breaking 3RR gets you "in trouble", but admins might use tools like protecting the page (which doesn't get you in trouble) to stop an escalating situation on a page before it gets that bad, if it's brought to our attention.


 * Also, if we didn't consider it an edit war until 3RR were broken, it would be a free-for-all with people thinking they had "the right" to revert people 3 times. Keeping the definition open makes people think carefully about what they do, but having the bright line rule can serve as a self-check if a situation escalates rapidly -- you know, like "Hey wow I just reverted a 3rd time, I didn't realize it was getting that bad, I'd better stop!"  Hope this all helps! (and that I'm not too long-winded lol) &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 02:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed, we're working on a revision paragraph. Thank you for your assistance.  You should unlock the page as soon as possible though.  Could you tell us what you mean by: "the only thing I used TW for was to add the protection template".Media67 (talk) 01:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You had implied that I might have used Twinkle improperly, but the only thing I actually used Twinkle for was protecting the page and adding the template to the article, which is what actually makes the little padlock at the top show up. I didn't use it improperly. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 02:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking your time to explain all this. If you believe it's appropriate to unlock the Gen X page please do so as soon as possible.  We're working it out on the talk pages as you suggested. Media67 (talk) 03:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Here's the proposal to Danteferno (per Media67 talk page 1/7/13): "The paragraph will be reworked to reflect Wikipedia policies. A copy of the new paragraph will be posted here (on Media67's talk page) FIRST then you (Danteferno) can make changes or suggestions (if any). If you (Danteferno) don't like the new paragraph and are unwilling to collaborate then it will be posted on the main Gen X talk page to solicit other editors input". Media67 (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 January 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 12:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Protection
Howdy! An editor requested semi-protection of Richard Manitoba to prevent some fairly long-term disruptive editing. Your interpretation was that there was an ongoing content dispute and the page was fully protected. A number of editors have since opined (on the article talk page) that longer-term semi-protection would have been more appropriate and have further explained the vandalism. I thought it only fair for you to have a right-of-reply if you felt so inclined. Stalwart 111  22:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know! &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 22:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * No worries! A good response I think. Stalwart 111  23:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Userbox
Hello Darkwind. Here is a userbox you might like to add:

Cheers! Congratulations for winning the mop!  CURTAINTOAD! TALK! 03:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks! &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 04:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Would you like to add the userbox?  CURTAINTOAD! TALK! 04:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I probably will, but I think I'm going to wait until it says at least a week, so I don't have people who use "he hasn't even been an admin for a week" as an excuse to argue with me... &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 05:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Great thanks! I wish I was an admin :(  CURTAINTOAD! TALK! 05:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Good idea to restrict from announcing your inexperience. It would be a RfA all over again, 'What!? He is blocking and protecting and 5 days old? Desysop him!' Though it would be those users who give all candidates a tough time at requests. Also when are you getting back on IRC, not seem you active since the 4th, I want to discuss something with you if possible about your so far administrative actions. John F. Lewis (talk) 06:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Probably tomorrow after work, so if there's anything you want to discuss asynchronously, here is fine. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 06:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably in 12 hours I may do it asynchronously. John F. Lewis (talk) 06:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

You should have added it on the day of your successful RFA, it would had said "This user has been an admin for no days at all!" And yes, do as I say, not as I do. KTC (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * *snort* &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 17:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If you want to, you can add that userbox now! :)  CURTAINTOAD! TALK! 01:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Anti-Islamism
When you moved Anti-Islamism, you forgot to redirect Anti-Islamism to Criticism of Islamism. I'd do it myself but the page is protected. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 20:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Anti-Islamism was the original article, and Anti-Islam was a redirect to Islamophobia. All I did during the move was to swap the titles of the two pages.  I don't see anything in that discussion that discusses changing the destination of the redirect (which used to be Anti-Islam and is now Anti-Islamism). If I'm mistaken, please let me know where that was discussed. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 21:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The whole bases of the RM was that Islamism and Islam are not the same thing, that Criticism of Islam, Persecution of Muslims, and Islamophobia are anti-Islam not Anti-Islamism. If the consensus it that Anti-Islamism doesn't describe those three articles, then conciseness is certainly against a redirect one of those three articles articles, a redirect to Islamophobia is even worse than a disambag page. The target makes no sense for the same reason the disambag didn't, it's rather like redirecting Anti-communism to Russophobia. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 22:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Two points:
 * I didn't read your message here carefully enough, I thought you wanted it redirected to Criticism of Islam, not Islamism. Sorry about that.
 * Either way, there was absolutely no discussion of what page Anti-Islamism was going to redirect to after the move.
 * However, your comments make sense, so I'll edit the redirect momentarily. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * No discussion, but an implication. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 22:57, 11 January 2013 (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) 21:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

--Amadscientist (talk) 01:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: File permission problem with File:Ruski car.bmp
Whow, that was uploaded in 2004. The thing is, it was copied from the German Wikipedia as you can see in the licensing part. I presumed by now all these permissions were reacquired through OTRS. Perhaps the author should be recontacted.--Avala (talk) 11:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The problem I found is that I can't determine what the original file name was on de.wiki. It definitely wasn't Ruski car.bmp, so I can't determine if there was an OTRS ticket number ever associated with it. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 02:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, I just did a thorough search in OTRS and couldn't find anything mentioning the zivotic.com/photo URL. It appears permission was never verified (at least not through OTRS). &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 04:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I guess he should be recontacted then.--Avala (talk) 22:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 January 2013
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 14:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

IP edits
Hey Darkwind, please have a look at my comment here, User_talk:Fæ. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thiago Alcántara
FC Barcelona footballer Thiago Alcántara do Nascimento, "Thiago", is a Spanish person of Brazilian descent, his father, former football player, Mazinho, is Brazilian. Also his brother, Rafael Alcántara do Nascimento "Rafinha", also football player appears in this category, so why Thiago cannot be in this one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.30.221.91 (talk) 05:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * If he is Brazilian, then add that category as well, instead of changing the current category (unless he is not also African). However, you should cite a reliable source when making changes like this. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 05:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

NK Maribor..
Thank you for everything that you have done to make this article pass the GA nomination (helping with the copyediting, finding grammar mistakes etc.). Maybe we will run into each other in the future as well:). Lep pozdrav, Ratipok (talk) 12:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Audrey Kitching
Hello! I noticed your help on the Audrey Kitching article, which has been the subject of frequent clear-cut vandalism. Do you know how we might be able to request protection on the page? Thanks for your contributions!Feather Jonah (talk) 19:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * While you can request page protection at WP:RPP, it's not likely that an admin would approve any protection at this time, because it's been 5 days since the page was last vandalized. Generally, the best cure is to keep the page on your watchlist and check it often. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 22:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info! I'll keep an eye on it, and submit a request if it gets any more frequent. Let me know if I can help you out with anything!Feather Jonah (talk) 05:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Page Triage newsletter
Hey guys!

Thanks to all of you who have commented on the New Page Triage talkpage. If you haven't had a chance yet, check it out; we're discussing some pretty interesting ideas, both from the Foundation and the community, and moving towards implementing quite a few of them :).

In addition, on Tuesday 13th March, we're holding an office hours session in #wikimedia-office on IRC at 19:00 UTC (11am Pacific time). If you can make it, please do; we'll have a lot of stuff to show you and talk about, including (hopefully) a timetable of when we're planning to do what. If you can't come, for whatever reason, let me know on my talkpage and I'm happy to send you the logs so you can get an idea of what happened :). Regards, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Adding new horror authors
Thank you for your kind welcome, I appreciate it. I've participated in Wikis before, so I understand Wikicode (but admit I am rusty). I intend on adding several horror authors, including the ones who are on the final Bram Stoker Award list for 2011. If you have the time, can you look at the page I posted and give me a bit of feedback? I would appreciate it. Thank you, VonSavant (talk) 04:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I've fixed a couple of minor things according to the Manual of Style (take a read if you plan to write lots of articles, it'll help you avoid over-zealous editors coming behind you to clean up...). The big things:
 * Never start an article with a ==header== . Articles should have a lead section and then the first header goes after the lead.
 * If you use tags, you need to either have a tag or reflist template in a section at the bottom, so the content of the ref tags will appear.
 * When citing sources, please see WP:CITE for guidance -- just a bare URL is better than nothing, but if you use a citation template like cite web, it helps avoid future problems if the website moves or goes down, and also allows readers to see what you're linking them to.


 * Let me know if I can be of any further help! &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 05:04, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I appreciate you taking the time to give me suggestions. I'll go over the material you suggested and build a template for the other horror authors I'm planning on adding. VonSavant (talk) 05:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Re: Julia Sand article
Hi Darkwind,

Thanks for considering the article I submitted on Julia Sand and I'm sorry that it doesn't meet Wikipedia's needs. I tried to delete the information, but the template wouldn't let me. You'll find that the article has been replaced with a single line which you can disregard.

Cheers,

the president's dwarf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thepresidentsdwarf (talk • contribs) 03:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Article on Joan Hassall
I have collected Joan Hassall's work for 40 years, and have all the published sources on her. I have written articles in scholarly book-collecting journals, and am shadowing an editor with the view of taking over from him. I made some corrections to the existing article on Joan Hassall, mostly the section on further reading. I realised that all the material in the present article comes from references on the web. Some are inaccurate, and some distorted through transmission. The greatest defect, however, lies in the omissions from her life. In my sandbox is a draft of a new article on which I would appreciate your opinion. It is broken down into sections, and has two overview sections, one on her life (Malham), the other on her work. The references are all to primary sources. I could add much more detail, but feel that that would be excessive for her stature in the greater order of things. I did add a photo of Joan Hassall (now deceased) taken By Brian North Lee (also deceased) for Hassall's private publicity needs, ie newspaper articles. I have several copies of the photo, but no scanner, so took the photo from the web (a newspaper article in the Craven Herald). I have received an automated message saying that the photo has been/will be omitted, which is fair enough. There is a rider which I do not fully understand which seems to indicate that It might be possible to use. I would like to add it if at all possible. Jim Maslen, 17th March Lowbourne (talk) 19:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Jackass, Dodger is NOT A DISCWORLD NOVEL
I have fixed it several times, and you keep reverting it to utter wrongness. Why? Because you have time to do that instead of just checking the facts. I have a life to attend to, the details are for fools like you who have nothing but time on their hands. Recognize that you are WRONG, learn something new, and fuck off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.173.71.164 (talk) 19:34, March 19, 2012‎ (UTC)


 * Excuse you? I haven't made any edits to the Dodger article other than to revert your unnecessary and rude commentary in the middle of the article. If other people are changing what you wrote, I have some advice for you: 1) Take it up with them, not with me.  2) WP:CIVIL. 3) WP:FANATIC. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 20:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 March 2012
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 13:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Article on Joan Hassall
Hi,

Have you had a chance to look over the draft article in my sandbox?

If it is acceptable, how do I go about replacing the existing article? Do I just paste my article in?

Thanks for any help that you can give me.Lowbourne (talk) 11:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trademarks
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trademarks. 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) 07:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey Asshole
How bout you look a little beyond the zit on the end of your nose and fix the fucking specious 'Dodger' by Terry Pratchett entries while you're at it. Idiot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.173.71.164 (talk) 05:17, March 19, 2012‎ (UTC)

Z-Wave
Hi, you reverted my last edit on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z-Wave as vandalism. You you give me a reason. The members of the alliance were updated a link to vendor neutral  info collection added and a link to a obviously commercial web shop removed. I like to learn, whats the problem here ?

Chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.109.241.20 (talk) 13:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 April 2012
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 04:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello
Remember me? I was the one who nominated NK Maribor article for GA and you approved the article (and did some copyediting in the process). I am currently working on List of Slovenian football champions and I put the article on Peer review, before I nominate the list of FL. I have a small problem though. One of the reviewers isnt really satisfied with this phrasing "During its times in the Yugoslav leagues, most of Slovenian teams competed in the Slovenian Republic Football League, for the title of regional champions.", so I was wondering if you (since you are a member of copy guild) can give me an input on how could I rephrase this statement so it would be good enough:). If you have the time and the will, you could check the list's talk page (Talk:List of Slovenian football champions) and write your comment in the current PR that is going on. After that I will probably nominate the list. Thank you for your help, Ratipok (talk) 13:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

New Page Triage prototype released
Hey Darkwind! We've finally finished the NPT prototype and deployed it on enwiki. We'll be holding an office hours session on the 16th at 21:00 in #wikimedia-office to show it off, get feedback and plot future developments - hope to see you there! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 03:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

A revision you made for Panajachel, Guatemala, last year.
Hi there,

I'm a resident of Panajachel. On the current edition of the page, and for several preceeding revisions, a reference provided by Richard Morgan S... appears. He is slyly promoting his business, and holds very little credibility within the local community, especially since the locals recently found out that he works for an entity of the United States government. I don't feel it appropriate to make such a change without discussion with another party. Do you have any ideas or suggestions? 190.56.154.65 (talk) 00:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

New Page Triage/New Pages Feed
Hey all :). A notification that the prototype for the New Pages Feed is now live on enwiki! We had to briefly take it down after an unfortunate bug started showing up, but it's now live and we will continue developing it on-site.

The page can be found at Special:NewPagesFeed. Please, please, please test it and tell us what you think! Note that as a prototype it will inevitably have bugs - if you find one not already mentioned at the talkpage, bring it up and I'm happy to carry it through to the devs. The same is true of any additions you can think of to the software, or any questions you might have - let me know and I'll respond.

Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy. 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) 11:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 August 2012
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 09:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)