User talk:David Fuchs/Archive 40

Tree shaping proposed decision Blackash's Topic ban
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs about your comment of my topic ban. Do you really believe 9 days is long enough to see if a partial topic ban is working? For that is the length of time Martin Hogbin give it before claiming the even discussing things at the talk page is a COI editing, and then set up a vote for a full topic ban. Please read RegentsPark's view on the main case page and evidence page as they address this issue there. Blackash  have a chat 05:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Tree shaping proposed decision
All editors' behavior should be looked and going by Elen of the Roads comment that due to family trouble she has been unable study this properly. Elen quote "I have the sense that there have been other people who have been problematic, but not the time to look at it deeper. It's unfortunate" Will you please come and comment here about this. Blackash  have a chat 08:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 July 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 10:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q2 2011
–MuZemike 14:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 July 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Question
What is the difference between infobox and sidbar? Sw mmr1928   talk  16:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Re:For you
Thanks! And no worries; you're at 43 and I'm at 5, I'm not going to catch up for years, if ever! -- Pres N  19:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Caylee anthony.jpg
Hi. You closed File:Caylee anthony.jpg as delete, but did not actually delete it. Was this intentional? (Apologies if you were in the middle of doing so, but got sidetracked - I do that occasionally - get something half done while waiting for something to compile, then it finishes and I don't get back to it for a while.) --B (talk) 14:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, FYI, if you are deleting an image at IFD and don't need to leave comments on it explaining your deletion (eg ), you don't need to leave the template - a bot will leave the template for you. --B (talk) 14:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for closing that sticky FFD. –Drilnoth (T/C) 16:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for being brave enough to close that, but I'd be lying to myself if I said I couldn't disagree with your decision more. chris † ian rocker 90  17:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * TRIPLE negative!?!? Is that even possible? ("lying", "couldn't", "disagree"). So, let's fix it up to: "I'd be lying to myself if I said I could agree with your decision more", which means "I could [not] agree with your decision more". Right? Right? Wait... no... &lt;/grammarnazi&gt; :-) –Drilnoth (T/C) 18:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Did my point get across though, Drilnoth? lol chris † ian rocker 90  19:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I got the gist. You were looking for the biblioteca, right? ;) Protonk (talk) 21:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ditto to Drilnoth's comment ... thanks for bravely taking this one on. --B (talk) 00:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case
How?: mediation again? like Talk:War of the Pacific/Archive 7?, Best regrads, --Keysanger (what?) 20:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

GLAM-Wiki Baltimore meetup
 You are invited to the first Wikipedia Baltimore meetup on Saturday, July 23, 10:00am-12:30pm at the Walters Art Museum. Come meet Wikimedians, learn about GLAM-Wiki partnerships, get involved, and discuss future wiki outreach and activities in the Baltimore area!

There also is a Wikipedia & Cultural Heritage at the Young Preservationist Happy Hour on Friday, July 22, 6:30pm at the Midtown Yacht Club, an unpretentious neighborhood pub.

Note: You can remove your name from the Baltimore meetup invite list here. -- Message delivered by AudeBot, on behalf of User:Aude

About Caylee Anthony IFD
Hi! I saw, in : "[...]or that she was a white girl and this was the reason for the coverage; but no secondary and reliable sources have been brought forth to support these assertions. The onus is on the defenders of non-free content to prove why it should remain, and no one in the discussion below did so. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)"

In the case of Stephanie Kuhen there are RSes of people who did say "she's white, so that's why her case got focus" - So what I'll do is see if there are observers who distinctly say that in RSes related to Caylee Anthony. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And I just found a newspaper editorial related to that:
 * Shirley, Stephen. "SHIRLEY: Anthony a case of 'Missing White Woman Syndrome'." The Daily News Journal.
 * I also found:
 * Clark, Roy Peter. "The Lure and Peril of ‘Missing White Girl’ Syndrome." The Poynter Institute. November 17, 2008.
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 02:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Speaking of Kuhen, I raised this exact point in her discussion page: Files_for_deletion/2011_July_17 WhisperToMe (talk) 04:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Those are good finds, but I'm not sure that they rise to the threshold of making the image essential (really they seem more like op/ed points that would work in an article about the phenomenon, rather than the death of Caylee Anthony). As you point out as well, they are opinion columns and thus don't carry the same weight. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 14:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright - I'll see if I can find a normal news story that may describe the phenomenon as relating to Caylee Anthony (as in a news reporter says "X says that Caylee Anthony's case is due to Y" WhisperToMe (talk) 00:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Goldfinger
Way back in October '09 you took Goldfinger off the Good Articles list. A number of the issues you raised at the time have since been rectified, although some still need work done on them and there are probably a few new ones as well. I'd like to see the article get back on that list and I hoped you would be able to have a fresh look over it and provide some pointers as to where it could be further edited to reach the appropriate quality. Would you be able to do this, or would you know someone who could? I’ve just been through the same process with Dr No, which is now back on the GA list and Goldfinger would be a greatr way to follow this up. Many thanks! - Schrodinger&#39;s cat is alive (talk) 08:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's great - it'll give me some time to gether some more sources and dig around a bit. Thanks very much for agreeing to do this.--Schrodinger&#39;s cat is alive (talk) 07:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Halo 3
It's not that I have a problem with those statements. Its that because they are uncited that there is an issue. Even the most lax members on citing plot would still require citations for vague or descriptive wording. This doesn't have to be secondary sources; it can include specific in-work citiations, but they need to be in-line. If they aren't its OR to say something is "enormous" or to say someone is still ignorant of the fact. 陣 内 Jinnai 15:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I see that. I think something like that could use a new reminder at the first time each section of what the race is. For example, the race is first mentioned in "modes", but not that its a race. Since Elite has other connotations, once per subsection should probably be done like is in setting "Covenant Elite". 陣 内 Jinnai 16:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 July 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Non-free content
You've been reverted. Thought you should know, --Hammersoft (talk) 21:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The WikiProject National Archives Newsletter
The first ever WikiProject National Archives newsletter has been published. Please read on to find out what we're up to and how to help out! There are many opportunities for getting more involved. Dominic·t 21:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppeteer unblocked
I have to complaint. The account Jabbsworth is the 6 sockpuppet used by the known sockpuppeteer Ratel to evade his block and to edit disruptively and warring. I have been affected a lot of times because of this sockpuppeteer. Then I do not understand how Jabbsworth was recently unblocked, precisely just few day after he was blocked by Elockid due the same reason: sockpuppetry to evade a block and edit disruptively and warring. Why have not the affected users been heard? Will he be allowed to edit in the same topics and articles for he got his first blocks because of editing warring and disrputive?-- <span class="texhtml" style="font-family:Berlin Sans FB; font-size:small; text-shadow:orange 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em;"> ClaudioSantos ¿?  00:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The above comment probably falls within the prohibitions of wp:CANVASSING, is therefore disruptive because it seeks to overturn an Arbcom decision, and the recipient would be wise to ignore it, or report it. I could also add that user ClaudioSantos has a long history of sockpuppetry and disruptive editing (trying to insert the word "murder" into all pages discussing euthanasia, for instance, and editing from a religious POV). At one stage he completely destroyed the Talk page at Talk:Action T4 by defacing it. He also had some of his socks, eg, permablocked. By "complaining" here, he is perpetuating the cycle. I say to him: please study the collegial atmosphere we try to achieve at WP. It allows constructive editing. Jabbsworth (talk) 01:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Should I fill a complaint? I think this user at least deserve a topic ban because he was not only blocked due sockpuppetry but also because of disruptive and editting warring, in the same few topics and articles. And I think the users affected should be also considered and protected. And reading the last comment I find he is again coming here to start attacking users with comments like the above one ("religious POV"), etc. -- <span class="texhtml" style="font-family:Berlin Sans FB; font-size:small; text-shadow:orange 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em;"> ClaudioSantos ¿?  01:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems he is again starting his doings so promptly. He just collpased some parts of a talk page. Is this not disruptive and warring? -- <span class="texhtml" style="font-family:Berlin Sans FB; font-size:small; text-shadow:orange 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em;"> ClaudioSantos ¿?  01:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Please note that my "disruptive" edits in article space have been upheld by consensus, and your edits have been removed as highly POV-pushing. So in reality, who is being disruptive? Jabbsworth (talk) 01:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Your edits were done with a sockpuppet evading a block. That was seriously disruptive as an admin Shirik warned to those people whe were upholding your edits. -- <span class="texhtml" style="font-family:Berlin Sans FB; font-size:small; text-shadow:orange 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em;"> ClaudioSantos ¿?  01:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not going to solve your disputes, and my talk page isn't really the place for arguments. Take it to the talk page or dispute resolution. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 01:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And what should I do about this> where he is proposing to imposse a topic ban against me? Was he unblocked to let him start again like that?-- <span class="texhtml" style="font-family:Berlin Sans FB; font-size:small; text-shadow:orange 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em;"> ClaudioSantos  ¿?  01:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Point of information - that's User:Night of the Big Wind proposing the topic ban, and Jabbsworth offering to help. I do not see any allegations that Night of the Big Wind has a sockpuppetry history, nor any longstanding abuse problems.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Nicer info, but does User:Night of the Big Wind behaviour changes user:Jabbsworth behaviour? he has started to try a ban against me just few minutes after he was unblocked, and I am not the only user who has been affected by user:Jabbsworth and should be protected. -- <span class="texhtml" style="font-family:Berlin Sans FB; font-size:small; text-shadow:orange 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em;"> ClaudioSantos  ¿?  02:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Come on, Claudio. Remember PepitoPerez2007, your sockpuppet? And it is a bit sad to start complaining to every ArbCom member you know.... Night of the Big Wind  <sub style="color:maroon;">talk  02:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Remember you were already warned by an admin to stop following any of my edits as possibly wikihounding me. And I do not know any ArbCom'user. Here I was asking what was the procedure to follow to avoid attacks from User:Ratel, and I was asking it to the admin who unblocked User:Ratel. But you NightOfTheBigWind, why are you here commenting about a cold case of my lost password for a lost account that I never used to evade blocks as the admin recognized and which is not the case here? -- <span class="texhtml" style="font-family:Berlin Sans FB; font-size:small; text-shadow:orange 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em;"> ClaudioSantos  ¿?  03:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 July 2011
<div 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 &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 22:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Note
Today's featured article/requests Dabomb87 (talk) 17:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 August 2011
<div 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 &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Reasons To Delete J1c3d (Y-DNA)
JohnLloydScharf (talk) 02:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes)
 * 2) Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed
 * 3) Categories representing overcategorization

The hold on editing has been taken off without explanation, to my knowledge, as of this moment, without justification.

JohnLloydScharf (talk) 00:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

'''The one who took this off the edit hold did so without reading the talk page.

JohnLloydScharf (talk) 01:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)'''

I refer to the article for J1c3d Y-DNA haplogroup as is indicated in the very first section of my User talk page.

Please see:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Haplogroup_J1c3d_(Y-DNA)


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J1c3d_(Y-DNA)

JohnLloydScharf (talk) 01:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Dota 2 suggestions
Hey David, now that things are heating up for Dota 2 and the page is edited more and more, with it becoming one of the most popular video game articles, I wrote some guide lines for recurring issues that have arisen during the page's history. As the main contributor for the original DotA, would you mind checking out my observations and commenting on their validity and what else might be needed? D arth B otto talk•cont 08:18, 03 August 2011 (UTC)

What's mean of "src"?
Your undid reason is "src", but I don't know it's mean, could you explain it? Thanks!--铁铁的火大了 (talk) 06:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 August 2011
<div 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 &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 23:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Busy?
Red vs. Blue, a FA has a Refimprove tag - I imagine it'd be quite easy to fix, most of the tags are in the plot section - I'd fix, however I'm busy this whole month. Could you take a look? Thanks, Connormah (talk) 22:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance
Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on August 18, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/August 18, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article directors or his delegate, or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions.  04:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

<div style="background-color: #D4AF37; border: 1px solid #1234aa; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); -moz-box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); -webkit-box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); border-radius: 1em; -moz-border-radius: 1em; -webkit-border-radius: 1em; padding: 8px; height: 1%;"> <div class="plainlinks" style="background-color: #FFFFFF; border-width: 1px; border-style: solid; border-color: #88a; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); -moz-box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); -webkit-box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); border-radius: 1em; -moz-border-radius: 1em; -webkit-border-radius: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; padding: 1em 1em .5em 1em;">

"200" is the sixth episode of the science fiction television series Stargate SG-1's tenth season, and the two-hundredth episode of the series overall. Unlike the more serious nature of the season's story arc, "200" is a light-hearted parody of both Stargate SG-1 and other sci-fi shows, as well as popular culture such as The Wizard of Oz. "200" won the 2007 Constellation Award for Best Overall 2006 Science Fiction Film or Television Script, and was nominated for the 2007 Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form. The episode also marks the first time original SG-1 member Jack O'Neill (Richard Dean Anderson) is seen since the beginning of Season 9. The episode received a 1.9 average household rating, one of the few episodes of the season that surpassed the average rating of Stargate SG-1's previous season. "200" also received near-universal praise for its humor and writing. Despite the strong performance of the episode, the Sci-Fi Channel announced soon after the episode's airing it would not be renewing the series for another season. (more...)

Tree shaping RfM
You may remember a recent Arbcom decision in which editors were requested to agree on an appropriate name for the article currently at Tree shaping. There has been a careful discussion on the subject, followed by an RfM which was hastily closed as 'No action' by involved administrator SilkTork. Was this what was envisaged by Arbcom? Perhaps you could take a look and give your opinion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Untimely deletion
The deletion of the Senkaku Islands mediation threads was unexpected. For me, the surprise was untimely. I hope that Feezo will be willing to explain this edit: Regardless, please consider using your administrator's tools to provide me with a copy of the missing threads. In order help make this possible, I have created a new sub-page. Please recreate copies of these useful diffs at User:Tenmei/Sandbox-Archive 1. Nihonjoe suggested here that I may need to ask an arbitrator to do this. --Tenmei (talk) 23:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * (Deletion log); 21:29 . . Feezo (talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Senkaku Islands" (For the Mediation Committee, due to arbitration case)

The Signpost: 15 August 2011
<div 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 &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 08:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Space Pirates and Zombies
Hi David, this game (as discussed at Articles for deletion/S.P.A.Z.) has indeed received relevant coverage now (GamePro, Rock Paper Shotgun, Atomic Gamer). I posted on Cirt's page, as they were the admin who closed the AFD, but they haven't been active for more than 3 weeks. Would you mind restoring the article so I can poke it with the sources? Someoneanother 11:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding SpartansOnFire
i know...i just told him about it. I'll see what i can do. It doesn't seem like he's read the policies.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Although he didn't exactly agree, he reluctantly decided to back down. So all is fixed.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Invited
Been invited to be part of the discussion to share your opinion whether List of LGBT characters in film, radio, and TV fiction should be deleted or not. this discussion is here here.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for input... AGAIN
Hey, I created a peer review for Dota 2 recently and I would very much like to hear your input for improvement. You don't need to worry about me stroking your ego, it only makes a reference to the fact that the original DotA is a FA and I'd like it to be the same for the sequel. D arth B otto talk•cont 17:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd like to thank you for giving me your non-sugar-coated opinion, telling me straight up front what I could change with the article. I applied all the possible changes I could take from the peer review, from both you and the other user, aside from the references for the gameplay for the game, as that is kind of difficult to reference at this time. Input from sources aside from Valve would be great, I admit. It seems like we'll have some more references to complete the quality of the page soon enough, when reliable sources get their hands on the beta and are not limited to the NDA that was given to all of us testers. IGN, for example, seems to be teetering on the edge, ready to give a review of the gameplay, but I guess we'll have to wait and see.


 * I think this page will become a FA eventually. Tell me what I need to get there, (it's just about at GA according to others), but I'd like to hear what to do to complete its quality. D arth B otto talk•cont 03:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I've made enough changes and improvements that I feel as if we're ready. I'm giving it a GAN. Begin round two and feel free to throw any new constructive criticism my way! D arth B otto talk•cont 19:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Popotan
I corrected the "hot fix" patch info and tried to remove the redundant info from the characters section. I've addressed the rest. 陣 内 Jinnai 22:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Responded. For reference I've already addressed the hot fix issue, the Japanese language issue (although that it is a nonsensical word is left in because enough independant sources go out of there way to make that point), and I believe I removed all the redundant character info that was also a part of plot. There were a few questioned I'd asked earlier, but as you only responded to one, I could only give a response back to that one. 陣 内 Jinnai 19:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's now [[Wikipedia:Peer review/Popotan/archive1|

archieved]], but I'd still like an answer to the last comment. You can post here or on the talk page. If you think it would be enough to be credible for the statement, I'll try and find a reassement of the PC game. If not, I'll not waste as much effort. 陣 内 Jinnai 19:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be demonstrative of changes, but you still couldn't say that those scenes in particular had been removed. You could say that changes prompted a rerating, it that's what the sources say. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 19:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 August 2011
<div 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 &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 23:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
-- Addi hockey  10  e-mail 03:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Just saw your comments there – where were you when I was arguing the same thing at Good article reassessment/Wait Your Turn/1? ;)  Two Hearted River  ( paddle /  fish ) 18:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Heyo!
Pssst, remember my big project I was previously hinting of? After previously saying that you might have put too detail in your Star Trek movie articles, it is time for your revenge. Take a look at Conan the Barbarian (1982 film) and mosey along to Peer review/Conan the Barbarian (1982 film)/archive1 to put your thoughts. Crom will thank thee for this. Jappalang (talk) 01:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ha! Using Ahnuld's Predator quote would not save you from the overwhelming information for Conan! Thanks very much for daring to take it on.  Jappalang (talk) 01:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dave, looking forward to your future comments. Jappalang (talk) 02:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 August 2011
<div 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 &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 07:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Halo 3: ODST
Hi David,

Just wondering what the reasons were for this revert?

It appears that OFLC is an antiquated body and that ACB is the correct organisation to reference for Australia.

Thanks, — Manti  core  16:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * We should stick with historical ratings and ratings bodies for the infobox. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 17:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * That makes sense, however, as far as I can tell the OFLC was dissolved prior to that game's release. — Manti  core  06:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit War
Hey David, It seems as if I'm engaged in an edit war with an anonymous user who is using multiple proxy servers to make the same exact edit, (on Dota 2, he adds (Defense of the Ancients 2) to the intro and reverts all my edits), and there hasn't been action because apparently his main IP is a "stale" edit, considering he hasn't vandalized with it in a week. I've put in a request for administrator intervention, but somebody else is posting their comment, saying that the evidence is less-than-convincing, since the main IP I'm looking to indefinitely ban is stale.

What are your thoughts on this? If you should know, the IP addresses that have used this exact same edit are: 203.87.193.210, 64.255.164.95, 64.255.164.22 and 64.255.164.52. Now, bear in mind that several of the references in the article specifically state that it is not called "Defense of the Ancients 2", but "Dota 2", because Valve views it as a thing, rather than some acronym.

May you intervene with this? D arth B otto talk•cont 21:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

too broard a proposal

 * - Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt_and_Jayen466/Proposed_decision

Hi, do you still intend to offer a new proposal or a change of wording? note - as he also commented along similar lines, I have asked the same question of Newyorkbrad.Off2riorob (talk) 15:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Senkaku
In response to your diff here, please acknowledge a question here. --Tenmei (talk) 18:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Cirt and Jayen466/Proposed decision#Proposed remedies (motion to close)
Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt and Jayen466/Proposed decision

Hi - There appears to be a motion to close this case later today. In the case that you have not noticed - there are two new proposals predented by Newyorkbrad - 3.3.2.1 Cirt restricted from BLPs and 3.3.2.2 Cirt restricted from "political" biographies - that you have not voted in. Thank you for your attention to this. - Off2riorob (talk) 01:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 September 2011
<div 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 &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 23:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Still doing?
I was just wondering if you were still planning to review at Peer review/Anachronox/archive1? Another reviewer has also said they will be "doing" the review, but the peer review is about 25 days old and the bot archives things after 30 days, so it needs some feedback soon. If you cannot, I will try to review it tomorrow. Thanks, Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 00:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I can review it if needed (I can sympathize - have also been quite busy IRL). Hope all is well with you, and thanks again, Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 15:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Serious matter
Dear Mr. Fuchs:
 * I´m sysop in es:WP (in spanish "bibliotecarios" o "librarians") since july 24th. I apologyze for my bad english. On August 24th (SamuelJoaquinFalseApostle, where SJ is the name of the leader of the church) upload this text, saying the church fall in contradictions, giving "his version" (no sources) and deleting other info.  rolled back the upload, and then SJFA begun a 3RR with Aldana and, adding more info in the way, some with sources, some not; mostly are very serious charges like rape, suicide, murder or bigamy. In some point AldanaN ask for protection. I agree, reverse to the first stable version and asked all implicated to discuss in the talk_page. I also let a message in his TP (like AldanaN, trying to explain that serious charges needs serious sources. Next day, he created a new user,  (same backwards) wich use to make a lot of charges, saying "all who edit this page are hypocrite, followers of the church" and another lot of stuffs. I asked him once again to calm down an the possible consecuences of breake Wikiquette and WP:NPA. He replied he saw no problems in his answers, and gave as source YouTube (forbidden in es:WP) and a web to dowloand things (also forbidden for copyvio). As you can see is writting IN CAPITAL.
 * I explain him the inconvenient of this actions, and the nicks he choose, but once again I received a worst reply, so I´ve got no more choice than blocked him 2 weeks for 3RR, WE and NPA, and eject the first sockpuppet, cleaning the discussion. He request the unbloking saying it was an irrational blocking. Another sysop check and reject the unblock request, but once again he created a new sockp  (JoaquinDynastyGoldenCalves) to delet the older text but introducing a new one: "UNFAIR BLOKING, Andreateletrabajo ABUSE OFN HER EXPERIENCE AND INTEGRATION", saying I abuse of my experience, pointing with the finger, he doesn't see why I blok his account 'cause only takes him 30 s to creates a new account. It´s only by AT (me) pride's arrogance", etc, etc, etc, and finish inviting me "To be more prudent and less elitis". All this info was hidden by Lourdes Cardenal after  blocked him and all his sockp. A new sockp,  (ILoveSamuelJoaquinIBowBeforeHim) let a message in AldanaN's TP: I used to appreciate this service, but after reading about the "librarians" who earn that title in a contest, simply remain disappointed. (...) I only reversed the section 3 disputes infallible and irrefutable appointments made ​​by professional researchers, but apparently there is a conspiracy between the "librarians" to edit a page to its benefit, its pocision makes pointing the finger and say who and who can not edit the page in order neutral (...) wikipedia is not a public service dedicated to the ideological diversity but for what they want to read. I am very disappointed, I am new to wikipedia and I would like to denounce the alleged librarians I took the trouble BRIDGING THE PAGES AND GIVE THEM "PRINT SCREEN" FOR WIKIPEDIA AS PROOF OF ABUSE OF AUTHORITY TO EXERCISE THE LIBRARY allegations of intimidation and harassment, WHEN I NEVER REALLY I went to any user, SOMETHING THE PRO-Joaquin LIGHT OF THE WORLD MUST UNDERSTAND IS WIKIPEDIA IS NOT THE OFFICIAL SITE OF THE CHURCH (...) I HOPE TO SEND MY FORM EVIDENCE OF ABUSE OF AUTHORITY perpetrated by the "librarians". EVEN MY NICK HAVE TO CHOOSE TO PROMOTE THE CHURCH IN THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD, OTHERWISE I'LL BE BLOCKED, JUST IS ABUSE OF AUTHORITY AND ELITE."


 * The protection of the article finish on july 31. On August 6th a new sockp, appears reintroducing a new version with this edit summary: "reasons to remove the controversy section, librarians need to understand that Wikipedia is not an OFFICIAL LLDM, I contacted David Fuchs for a resolution of abuse of librarians and I have received response"


 * A checkuser probed all this all sockp, and found another one:  (HeresiarchSJ). So, we have:


 * - not blocked
 * - not blocked
 * - not blocked
 * - not blocked
 * - not blocked


 * So, admin-abuse is the reason who bring me here. If you established the abuse of the sysop involved in the case, is a least natural than I spect at least for an information. So, did you concluded I abuse of the buttons? or this is a single purpose account (and very agressive, too)?


 * I post here because it´s a public space and I don´t want more suspicion. I have nothing to hide and if you stablish I abuse I want a public statement, as this is a very serious matter involving several persons. I never edit the article, and never discuss his content. But now I´ve got two sockpuppets "alive" than I can´t block myself for not to increase the problem, and apparently you told him he can edit, so please, I need a clue about what to do. Thanks. Sorry for the inconvenients and the long text. Cheers. --Andreateletrabajo (talk) 17:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I´ve got no problems, here or there, but he said he talks to you and you gave him an answer. It´s a least logical I, as one of the admins involves, asked for the request you gave him. No problem. --Andreateletrabajo (talk) 18:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That´s exactly what I suspected. Thanks a lot for your time. Cheers. --Andreateletrabajo (talk) 21:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Operation Rainfall for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Operation Rainfall is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles_for_deletion/Operation_Rainfall until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Crabbattler (talk) 20:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Dispute over deleted external link
I sent you an email.

Atsme Atsme (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC).

The Signpost: 12 September 2011
<div 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 &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 23:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

request for help
hi.I need to help strongly. i have a question. you can check the users of other wikies?

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.95.139.27 (talk) 07:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

You're invited! Wikimedia DC Annual Membership Meeting
Note: You can remove your name from the DC meetup invite list here. -- Message delivered by AudeBot, on behalf of User:Aude

Anachronox
Thanks for the peer review. I'll let you know when it hits FAC. Feel free to give me an article you want copyedited or fixed up. ZeaLitY <font size="-4">[ Talk  -  Activity  ]  01:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. I certainly didn't make it easy, considering the massive size of that article. I'll get on Reach. ZeaLitY <font size="-4">[ Talk  -  Activity  ]  03:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you from User:Nelsondenis248
Thank you for posting the guidelines, and getting me started again. Here's to good editing.

Nelsondenis248 (talk) 19:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 September 2011
<div 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 &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 09:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

should a controversy article describe both sides?
The article on the aspartame controversy does not address the controversy but instead promotes the industry’s side of the argument. ( or perhaps this is my bias)    My efforts to add research that describes the other side of this controversy have met with failure. The article itself has 20 references to a paper paid for by the industry but presumedly written without knowledge of the sponsor. Do you have any ideas on making it a more NPV article. Or should i just give up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.172.214.170 (talk) 14:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * OK thanks.

Part of the controversy is that many journal articles attest to the safety of aspartame but anyone who looks at consumer complaints sees a entirely different story. 75 % of all FDA complaints are due to aspartame. over 3000 complaints to CDC according to reference 8 in the article. Many many web sites ( including one I put up) attest to the harm done by aspartame.

But consumer complaints are not peer reviews. Thus they are ignored.

Perhaps I am a extremist but I tend to side more with actual cases of sick people instead of lab experiments. People do not get sick to verify lab experiments. The experiments are designed to prevent people from getting sick. In this case they may have failed.

Do you agree that it is OK to ignore the many testimonial accounts presented  and only present the view of journal articles many of which are published by the industry. Or should the accounts of sick people be given equal creditability. ps I hope it is ok to follow up at least once. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.172.214.170 (talk) 13:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 September 2011
<div 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 &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

OTRS Question
Hi David, was wondering the extent of images that the permission given in this ORTS ticket: goes to. Just wondering because we're missing more photos of MLAs and there seem to be some in the same setting that haven't been uploaded, eg.,  and. Thanks in advance. – Connormah (talk) 03:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. – Connormah (talk) 03:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

you sent me a message about editing wiki pages but the one on halo reach was a real fact not vandilism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dude149 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Re-visiting ban decision
At Tenmei banned for one year, you support a harsh sanction.

Please consider a less severe remedy in light of a wider contribution history which may have been overlooked -- see
 * User talk:Roger Davies#Thank you for writing something good
 * User:Newyorkbrad#Thank you for writing something good
 * GA, 2010 G-20 Toronto summit

In 2009, Roger Davies observed,
 * "I believe that Tenmei was trying to create an appropriate backdrop for later helpful and meaningful discussions ...."

The Senkaku issues were not simple; but there you have it.

Even this diff does not alter your judgment in this instance, I hope it will influence your thinking in other cases which arise in the future? --Tenmei (talk) 04:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Crom! (again)
Hi Dave. If it is not too much of a bother, could you take a quick look at Conan the Barbarian (1982 film) again? Yomangani had pruned and copy-edited it a great deal, and there were some other changes too. Do you think the current revision would stand a good chance at FAC? Jappalang (talk) 01:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hail! Thanks to the encouragements, Conan the Barbarian (1982 film) is now at FAC.  Please partake the literary orgy (no cannibalistic deviant ones, unfortunately) at Featured article candidates/Conan the Barbarian (1982 film)/archive1.  I await your comments there.  Jappalang (talk) 03:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Dude149
english is not my fist language — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dude149 (talk • contribs) 12:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 October 2011
<div 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 &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 05:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q3 2011
MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 07:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Urgent Help
Hi.Please help me.Please tell me What I must do? I am new comer to wikipedia.I delete some mistakes and lies about Azerbaijan and Iran.But these two users User:Xooon and User:Alborz Fallah were plotting against me Sockpuppet investigations/Orartu to continue their lying about Iran and Azerbaijan.For example:When there is no valid source about Azerbaijani ancestry of a person, they insist to put them in category:Iranian people of Azerbaijani descent.This user User:Ebrahimi-amir and me are different users.But this user User:Xooon wants to intend we are same.They want to violate the neutrality of wikipedia.They want the deletion of this articleAzerbaijani Genocide in Iran too.Please help me.In advance thanks a lot for your helpsOrartu (talk) 18:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

ARA comment
I don't think you said what your try to say here (why would the fact that the old complaints cannot be validated speak against loosening the restrictions?). I also think what you try to say is dangerously wrong, but if it is your opinion, it should at least be clear. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

To echo Jon, without seeing any confirmation by WMC of the validity of all the complaints from previous cases
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Can you say which cases you have in mind? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Your "clarification" doesn't really clarify anything. Do you mean, "cases" (in the plural) as you previously said, or not? If you don't mean cases (in the plural) then you need a correction, not a clarification William M. Connolley (talk) 15:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 October 2011
<div 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 &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 October 2011
<div 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 &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 10:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Signpost Dispatches notice
Hello there. I'm writing to tell you that the editors of the Signpost are making an effort to revive the long dormant Dispatches section. Your name is listed in the "Members" section, indicating that you have or had a willingness to help write or critique Dispatches.

Since the project was inactive for over a year, I have moved all of the names previously in the Members section to the "Inactive" subsection. If you no longer wish to participate in the capacity described above, you do not need to do anything, this will be the last time you hear from me on the matter of dispatches.

If you are, however, still interested in Dispatches, please go put your name back into the main members section. I will take that as an indication that it is okay to continue to send your way both Dispatch related messages and individuals seeking assistance with Dispatches in the areas you specified as being your specialties.

I personally am hoping to get at least one Dispatch out before 15 November, so that the section can avoid being officially inactive for a full year (the last dispatch was 15 November 2010). Cheers!  S ven M anguard  Wha?  08:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Remember how I said that "this will be the last time you hear from me on the matter of dispatches" (it's right above this)? I lied. I'm deliviering another message, this time it really will be my final message related to Dispatches.


 * Yesterday, I was enthusiastic about getting Dispatches back up and running. However while I was asleep (note I'm in UTC +8), ResMar and SandyGeorgia decided to use my talk page to stage a massive, ugly brawl. I was unaware of the history behind Dispatches when I first signed up, but I certainly have an indication of it now. It's not a pretty history either. From what I gather, it was working fine and then just erupted into a fireball of ill feelings and unkind words, and my efforts to reactivate the section have caused another fireball. In short, I want out, and since nothing, save the brawl, has actually happened yet, rapidly pulling stakes and leaving the whole thing behind me poses no ethical dilemma in my mind.


 * You are, of course, free to do whatever you want in regards to Dispatches, however you should be aware of the fact that you are going to be wading headfirst into an explosive situation, and will be stuck between several well known editors who are more than willing to fight for their agendas. Whatever you do, however, I'd much prefer to be kept out of the loop on the matter.


 * Sorry for the abrupt turn of events. I would have tried my very hardest to make Dispatches work if I were not convinced that the atmosphere is too poisoned to function. However, since it is, I'm gone. Good luck,  S ven M anguard   Wha?  05:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 October 2011
<div 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 &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 10:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Full contents of WikiProject Film newsletter?
Hello, you are listed at WikiProject Film/Outreach as preferring the full contents of the latest WikiProject Film newsletter. There has been a transition in newsletter writing and distribution, so I wanted to ask if you still prefer the full contents (which may have been delivered with some inconsistency in the past) or if you are okay with a link to the newsletter page. Thanks, Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 19:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I noticed that members who want the full contents are not in the list of active members, so I wanted to see if full contents was still a particular preference. I'll probably just list steps for generating a new list for distribution each month, removing those who do not want to receive it and those who want to receive full contents, and sending the full contents to the smaller set of editors. By the way, considering you're an admin involved with film on occasion, I thought you might be interested in this discussion: WP:AN. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 21:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

You're invited! Wikipedia Loves Libraries DC
Note: You can remove your name from the DC meetup invite list here. -- Message delivered by AudeBot (talk) 18:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC), on behalf of User:Aude

The Signpost: 31 October 2011
<div 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 &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 17:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)