User talk:FormerIP/Archive6

Disambiguation link notification for January 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jacques Dutronc, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gaumont (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Surveillance awareness day
You were supportive of the idea that Jehochman proposed: "A message is most effective when it matches the format of the media. We're an encyclopedia. On Feb 11, I suggest we fill our front page with articles, blurbs and news about mass spying and privacy. That will send a strong message, and help educate people. It's sort of like what we do on April 1, except serious instead of foolish."

Since this proposal received so much support, I and several others have done our best to begin the process of implementation. That said, the proposal is very controversial with Main Page insiders who have, understandably, objections that boil down to WP:NOTADVOCATE.

It's valuable to have feedback from people who oppose any deviation from the status quo, but we really need feedback from people who understood Jehochman idea, supported it, and could tell us whether we're succeeding in "implementing the vision" that Jehochman laid out and how to improve the proposal.

If you have the time, would you lend your view over at Surveillance awareness day. If you want to see a list of custom content that could be available, we have a Arbitrary mockup #2, that shows lots of proposed content on one page.

Your feedback is most appreciated. --HectorMoffet (talk) 09:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Émile Coulaudon, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Maquis and Auvergne (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=592659184 your edit] to Annamalai Varadaraja Perumal may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * pages=84–}} In an attempt to end Sri Lankan civil war, the [Indo-Sri Lanka Peace Accord] was signed. Therefore, Northern and the [[Eastern Province, Sri

DYK nomination of Émile Coulaudon
Hello! Your submission of Émile Coulaudon at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 23:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Dab link in Émile Coulaudon hook
The DYK hook for Émile Coulaudon (currently in Prep 3) contains a link to the disambiguation page Auvergne. I'm guessing that you meant to link to Auvergne (region), and I've edited the hook accordingly, but it would be good if you could confirm this before it hits the main page. Thanks. DoctorKubla (talk) 09:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you. Formerip (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Émile Coulaudon
Materialscientist (talk) 01:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

snowed under?
So glad to hear that "you and your bird" enjoy such a variety of outdoor pursuits, (with or without adult supervision). Martinevans123 (talk) 18:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Capitalization of defense minister
Kindly read the following article on BBC where defense minister is capitalized http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-echochambers-26374884 nd then tell me why we shouldnt capitalize, are u better than the BBC writers? :) jthomas91 02:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Jacques Dutronc
Thanks very much for marking my edits to Jacques Dutronc as good faith. I'm new to the DAB process so I'd be glad to know more about the reasoning behind reverting the disambiguating I did for Gaumont Musique. As I understand WP:INTDABLINK, links should point to an article, not a disambiguation page. In this case, there is no entry for Gaumont Musique on Gaumont so the reference to Gaumont Musique on Jacques Dutronc's page should either be unlinked or a redlink. If I've missed something, please let me know as I want to be sure to interpret the guidance correctly. Thanks very much Mfbjr (talk) 18:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Molyneux RfC
The problem with the argument you presented in your vote is that none of "Eric Cantona, John Lennon and Lady Gaga" (nor you) seem to have reliable sources calling them a philosopher, or citing that they produce philosophical output. Information on Wikipedia is based on verifiability, not "truth", and I've presented a pageful of sources that describe his career directly as "philosopher" or make equivalent reference to it by using similar words like "philosophy show" or "philosophical website". You may believe that it can't be true that he is a philosopher, based on your personal preference that that term be reserved only for those in academia, but that is irrelevant in the face of a massive number of sources of all types that confirm his career as being philosopher. Please reconsider, or please explain why so many verifiable sources should be ignored in favor of your belief. -- Netoholic @ 04:21, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * , ,
 * That took me about 30 seconds. Formerip (talk) 10:57, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Great. And if one were to gather a pageful of sources that establish that they produce philosophical output which has been commented on and cited several times, especially if we can document that they consider themselves a member of that profession, we should absolutely include that moniker in their articles. -- Netoholic @ 18:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

R v AB and CD
I note you reverted my addition of a reference to R v AB and CD as that ref didn't link the cases and I will not revert you but take a look at this BBC report, this newspaper, this itv story and this news item which all use AB & CD and link them to that arrest.&mdash; Rod talk 20:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. I hadn't seen sources using "AB" and "CD". Please feel free to add back using one of those sources. Formerip (talk) 20:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jacques Lanzmann, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hachette (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Editing other people's posts
Please don't do that again. Clearly if you believe what you wrote you haven't bothered looking. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Tell you what, you promise not to archive sections in order to avoid questions, and I'll promise not to edit your posts.
 * Can you link me toy a news report on Leach's death (not an obituary), because I couldn't find any. Formerip (talk) 11:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Diacritics RfC
Hello - I'm inviting you to be part of a small group to help devise a comprehensive RfC on the topic of diacritics usage on WP. I'm trying to include editors with a broad range of approaches, and openness to collaboration, in order to make it as strong a proposal as possible. If you're interested, let me know, or pop over to User:Dohn joe/diacritics to participate. Thanks! Dohn joe (talk) 17:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Thorough RfC closes
Thank you for your excellent RfC closes! Talk:Gun politics in the United States (permanent link), your first WP:ANRFC close, was explained very well, as was your later closes. A note: If an editor ever reverts one of your closes, and you cannot come to an agreement with that editor, I recommend that you start a closure review at WP:AN. See a list of previous closure reviews at Administrators' noticeboard/Closure review archive. I hope you continue your prolific quality work at ANRFC helping editors resolve disputes. Your thorough closes are very appreciated. Thank you again! Cunard (talk) 05:11, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Formerip (talk) 08:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * And thanks. I guess now I've earned my barnstar I can stop doing it... Formerip (talk) 14:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * BTW there is a template to indicate that you're about to close a discussion. It's called Closing. Armbrust The Homunculus 19:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK for R v Incedal and Rarmoul-Bouhadjar
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

BNA access email
Hey ForemerIP, just wanted to remind you that I sent an email 4 days ago detailing how to get access to BNA through The Wikipedia Library; please make sure to follow those instructions and complete the Google Form. Thank you, Sadads (talk) 16:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Digital democracy project
Hello FormerIP. I wanted to drop you a note, firstly to thank you for all of your input to the attempt to community source the submission to the Speaker's Commission on Digital Democracy. Even though the work hasn't been overwhelmed by large numbers of contributors I think it has led to something valuable. We are going to look at encouraging submission to the next theme - representation - and the final theme, when it is announced. Each theme will have a separate submission (to include the talk page) but at the time of the final one we'll be compiling some kind of report as an accompaniment. The second point is I definitely agree we need to encourage more people to participate directly on the call for the second theme (and those subsequent). I would love to get some suggestions from you on this. I have deliberately been quite reticent about promoting the project through Wikipedia channels as I don't want to do anything that could upset the community. Do you have any views on how we could get more people involved? Thank you for all of your help so far, it is appreciated. Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 15:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

RfC close
Hey FormerIP, please don't take my position on your RfC close personally. I work in the intellectual property field--though almost exclusively not in relation to copyright these days--so I'm just trying to set things straight there. I couldn't care less about the bogus lawsuit. You'll note that I spent a substantial amount of time and effort in relation to the RC at issue. Thanks.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 00:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

FormerIP, I assume that you know that I respect your work here on Wikipedia, though I did find lapses and other issues in the text of the close at issue. I don't want to have to spend this much time on the issue (I'm trying to wrap up a couple of issues, scale back and go on a Wikibreak), but there are a couple of nuanced points that need to be addressed, so I've provided input in relation to those. I really don't want to have to go through some procedural process of challenging you your close so that others don't misread the situation, and hope you will cooperate with me in finding the path of least resistance (and least time consuming) forward. Please check the response I've left and let me know if you are aware of a way to solve this dilemma with minimal effort.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 16:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * Burp.
 * Cheers! Formerip (talk) 17:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Close on Oathkeeper
Please be advised that your close-action on the Oathkeeper RfC also covered parts of the discussion that were not part of the RfC. The RfC asks for comments on whether the primary source alone is sufficient support for the text in question, but you also closed sections that discussed secondary sources, including secondary sources that were brought in after the RfC was already (de facto) over. If possible, please adjust the closure to leave these sections open.

I notice that your closing notes do not mention any of the secondary sources that were being used to support the text at the time of the RfC. You address the use of the primary source alone&mdash;which was after all the subject of the RfC. Were you aware that secondary sources were also in use? If not, please confirm on Talk:Oathkeeper that your decision applies to the use of the primary source alone and not to the use of secondary or say explicitly that you are applying it to both (though if you want to weigh in on the ongoing discussion, I'd be glad of it). Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you ever so much for helping to bring some closure to the matter. We've been waiting for this sort of assistance for almost a month, and with varying levels of patience. I know there is some more to sort out, but this sort of clarification was really, really helpful to the discussion. Thanks again. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!
Nikkimaria (talk) 13:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Credo
Hello! You have received preliminary approval for access to Credo. Please fill out this short form so that your access can be processed. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC case opened
You were recently recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 26, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. Before adding evidence please review the scope of the case. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Yep, Oathkeeper again…
After your closure of the RfC, the rest of us thought the matter was settled and a consensus was clear. Apparently, not for Darkfrog24, who has continued edit-warring. Since you were involved in the matter, I thought you might want to know that i finally grew tired of her antics and filed a 3RR complaint, which can be found here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It resulted in her block. It was suggested that in order to seek a topic ban on GoT-type articles, it was a matter to be brought to AN. I'll wait and give Darkfrog24 the opportunity to contribute collaboratively after the blcok. If the problems resume, I'll pursue other options then. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note.
 * Just so you know, I don't feel I'm able to to enforce the RfC close against individual editors, although I have no problem with you leaving me messages. Thanks. Formerip (talk) 19:29, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I let you know because you made a ruling regarding the source usage, which DF24 was pointedly disagreeing with and ignoring. If necessary, you could have corrected any sort of misunderstanding that might have arisen in any resulting discussion. It is certainly not my place to clutter up your talk page with inconsequential stuff. Thanks for replying, We now return to our regularly scheduled editing. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:John Anthony Brooks
You misinterpreted the consensus in the RfC. The discussion changed direction in the end and the current wording on the article is what was finally determined. Please change your conclusion to reflect the discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've responded at the talk page. Thanks. Formerip (talk) 00:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. GiantSnowman 14:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Pacific Islands Forum
I know this is borderline spamming and probably a rude thing to go to someone's talk page for this, but are you willing to support In the news/Candidates now that I have created a fairly thorough article at 45th Pacific Islands Forum? Thanks.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 20:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Latest stage of submission to the Speaker's Commission on Digital Democracy
Hello there. I thought I would drop you a note as you kindly took part in the first stage of the efforts to crowdsource a submission to the Speaker's Commission on Digital Democracy. The second stage is now live and can be seen here. It would be great if you could help with putting together the submission on the second theme, which relates to representation. Also, if you have any suggestions on how we can widen participation, that would be very helpful. Thanks again for all of your help. Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 11:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC draft principles & findings
Hello. This is a courtesy note that the draft findings and principles in the Media Viewer RfC case have now been posted. The drafters of the proposed decision anticipate a final version of the PD will be posted after 11 August. You are welcome to give feedback on the workshop page. For the Committee, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Daniel Amen RFC
Thank you for your in-depth analysis and attention on the RFC: List of journal articles. I don't know if this would make a difference in the outcome, but you noted that four editors supported inclusion. The count is actually five total editors that supported inclusion including GeorgeLouis, Dmrwikiprof, DThomsen8, Familygardner, and AlanS. Thanks again for your time! Dmrwikiprof (talk) 18:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * It doesn't make a difference, no, but I'm glad someone is paying attention. Thanks for the correction. Formerip (talk) 19:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

DRN escalation recommendation to ANI and Mediation re Historicity of Jesus
Just FYI --IseeEwe (talk) 01:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * [ANI request]
 * [Mediation request]

Recent RfC close
I rather bluntly reverted your RfC close on Talk:List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll. I apologize for also removing your well thought out comments; the template and content edits, not to mention tone, were so intertwined I couldn't extract your thoughts without fear of incongruity or putting words in your mouth. I assume you'll want to restate/copy-paste your position and I apologize for the inconvenience. Your final count was off, it was 5/6, not 4/6, counting my vot which I had assumed, as the principal advocate of retention and participant in the RfC, was inferred. The first point of your explanation was a peripheral thought and not a central component of the argument to remove the entry. As your send point correctly concluded, the central facet of the discussion was the appropriateness of including what we settled on calling "meta-events" in the list. I've already spoken to Fauzan, the principal force behind removal, and he agreed that he saw no consensus on the issue as raised. From here we are going to relist the RfC as a broader question of whether or not to include such "meta-events", as this was the sticking point in the end. Many "Keeps" felt it irregular to singularly remove the entry in question without overtly changing the scope of the list to reflect the implementation of that logic. I suspect this will result in a clear and lasting consensus so we won't have to revisit this in detail again. GraniteSand (talk) 22:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Procedurally, you don't need to revert the close in order to launch an RfC on a broader question, you can just do it, and I'll even agree that that might be a good idea.
 * However I stand by the close, so please do not edit-war over it. I haven't counted your vote because you didn't make one, and the comments you did make (within the RfC) did not indicate to me a clear position. You may think that I have given too much weight to a tangential issue, but I disagree. You may think it is tangential, but it seems to me that no-one is very sure what the source in contention actually says, which I think is a big deal.
 * I think the only productive ways forward would be for you to challenge the close at AN or to just ignore it and formulate a new RfC. Formerip (talk) 22:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not that the sourcing in question was tangential, it was that the question was raised by an editor and then went fallow because the veracity of the sourcing's parameters as stated in the article didn't seem to be of any enduring concern. As such it was a curious aside to turn into one of the two pillars of logic used in the close. I'm certainly not going to edit war with you, my last reversion is my last. As I said, I hope you restate your opinion in the RfC, just please don't cap it and strangle input, especially when we don't yet have any real consensus on the question at hand. I know that it's been 30 days but that's an arbitrary guideline for closure, not any sort of rule. If you believe that a relist is a good idea then feel free to close it as the "no consensus" it is and we can approach it from the aforementioned angle. GraniteSand (talk) 22:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think anything raised in an RfC goes "fallow". If it is not effectively refuted, it sits there for the closer to take into account. Think about it from my perspective, as an outsider to the discussion. On the one hand, I can see a discussion about whether a 500-year period of Indian history can be considered as a single event, which is largely inconclusive. On the other, editors are questioning the basic reliability of the material in question. That may not have been your main focus, but can you appreciate that it is not something I can easily ignore. Basically, the material in contention is sourced contrary to WP:Page numbers to a book which no-one involved appears to have ever laid eyes on. How can that not be a concern?
 * Since your first reversion of the close, I've made attempts to actually find the source, but I've only been able to look at it in Google Books snippets. That's of very limited use, but I have managed to work out that the page we are concerned with is probably p.89, where the author gives an account of population changes over the period in question. I haven't been able to work out if there is an overall decline in population of 60-80 million (although I can say that neither of these figures seem to be directly mentioned), but it does appear that whatever decline there is is not solely attributable to deaths related to war, but also to famine, deportation, migration and de-urbanisation (even if this might be a little eyebrow-raising - do people who move to rural areas suddenly cease to exist?), and possibly to war-related changes in fertility rates. I'm even less confident now that the source can really be relied upon for such a significant claim. Hope you will give this some thought.
 * I'm not sure what you are requesting I should do above. 30 days is only guidance, but what are you suggesting extra time would achieve? Formerip (talk) 00:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC arbitration case - motion to suspend case
You are receiving this message as you have either commented on a case page or are named as a party to the case. A motion has been proposed to suspend the Media Viewer RfC arbitration case for a maximum of 60 days due to recent developments. If you wish to comment regarding the motion there is a section on the proposed decision talk page for this. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:39, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Ligatures & Aethelstan
Hello, could you explain what you meant by saying I "missed the point" of the my Aethelstan revision concerning ligatures? Thank you, Peacedance (talk) 02:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:ANRFC closings
Hello there! I'm glad to see that you are helping out by closing discussions at WP:ANRFC! I have one request, when you mark a discussion as Done on that page, please also look for and mark the as yes as well. This will deactivate the styling and more importantly the categorization that template does. If this isn't done, and the section gets archived without it, it may just cause needless drama about the archive page being marked as being and administrative backlog. Avoiding drama is usually a good thing. :) Thank you very much, and I look forward to seeing more closes by you. Also, keep tuned in, as I intend to start working on a new userscript before long to make this things easier to close. Happy closing! — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 12:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)