User talk:GRuban/Archive 2

DYK nomination
I commented at your DYK nomination here. On re-reading, my comment appears a bit terse; please let me know if my meaning is unclear. Thanks for submitting the article, Ucucha 20:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Requests_for_comment/Biographies_of_living_people
This is not a game of whack a mole? Oh right... LOL. Bearian (talk) 02:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion invitation
Ikip 05:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC) (refactored - thanks for your suggestion! hope to hear your comments!} Ikip  16:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Philip Lindholm
Hey, just to let you know that I've commented on the AfD debate for this. In summary, I think the article overdoes it a bit, but he might be notable. If you could give it another look that would be great. Quantpole (talk) 15:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit summary of the week award
This edit summary made my week. Thank you! Risker (talk) 21:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I tremble in awe, but accept. After reading a certain paragraph of the proposed decision, I suggest the following formal symbol for the new award ... :-) --GRuban (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC) RoastingMarshmallow.jpg

Since you asked for it
Oh and thanks for the spelling fix. Shell  babelfish 23:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Your immortal soul
Please be advised that the Arbitration Committee has decided that you may retain your immortal soul, by a vote of 9 in favor and 3 opposed, with 2 abstaining. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

alexander mcqueen images
The fair-use one I removed because it should be deleted. There are a number of legit photos on flickr of mcqueen, and we just need to ask these photographers and get one to change the licensing. The others are clearly professional photos randomly posted to flickrstreams (low-res, and only pro photographers have the seats where they can get this angle). I haven't gotten around to nominating them for deletion, but since they're copyvios they shouldn't be in the article. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. I went back to Flickr and checked; three do seem to be noticeably different from the photographer's personal photos, I nominated them for speedy deletion at Commons. The last, however, is taken by a professional photographer, with the same camera he uses for his other pics. I'll fight to defend that one. --GRuban (talk) 20:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:
 * 1) Proposal to Close This RfC
 * 2) Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip  02:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Your reply on Associated Press Reliable source
Hello GRuban, I have replied to help at the above. Thanks! Victor9876 (talk) 14:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Contention
I don't believe that all unsourced information is contentious; there are plenty of unsourced statements in BLPs that have not given rise to any contention. That is not the case for BLPs that are unsourced in their entirety, however: clearly those are contentious. Steve Smith (talk) 23:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Birthdate
Thank you, thank you, thank you for this. --Jezebel's Ponyo shhh 16:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! I saw you asking at WP:RSN ... :-) --GRuban (talk) 17:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Palatine Imperial Palace photo
Don't think that I can rotate it without "breaking " it. Feel free to rotate if you can do so safely. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Adam Kontras
Thank you so much for your support in the argument for my latest article for deletion. Wikipedia has been a valuable resource for the establishment of my career, and has led to interviews and some notoriety. Once again, I thank you so much for your support. Adam kontras (talk) 19:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Nice finds
You made some nice finds in those sources for American City University. I'm impressed!

I hope you'll be !voting at the AfD, too. --Orlady (talk) 16:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your referencing work on the article Herbert Schildt. Much appreciated, -- Cirt (talk) 05:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Glad to help. --GRuban (talk) 06:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Dell Schanze
This is an interesting case. The use of WP:BLPDEL was bold, but the deletion was appropriate per WP:BLP, WP:NOTSCANDAL, WP:ATP, and WP:BIO. Schanze is known (rather than "notable") for his annoying ads, which led to public attention to otherwise trivial events.

WP:BIO states, "The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded."[1] Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular"—although not irrelevant—is secondary."

In my opinion, Schanze is not notable, only well-known in a limited geographical area because of poor journalistic standards there. --Ronz (talk) 16:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * We'll see, after I rewrite it. Personally, I never saw one of his ads, and am not planning to focus the article on his scandals. I did, however, read about a self made millionaire, daredevil, and candidate for multiple offices. That seems plenty significant, interesting, and unusual. --GRuban (talk) 16:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I tried the same, but couldn't find a single, non-trivial reference that didn't include scandal mongering. --Ronz (talk) 17:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's not the same thing. You can't find a single non-trivial reference about Bill Clinton or Richard Nixon or John Edwards or Mark Sanford or ... (what is it about politicians, anyway?) that doesn't include scandal mongering, but that doesn't mean we can't write a balanced article about them. I don't intend to focus on the scandals, but that's not the same as not mentioning them. --GRuban (talk) 17:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to give you some indication on my perspective, given the loss of the talk page discussions. I'm not sure what to make of your response.  You realize it's nonsense, right?  How is it compatible with BLP? --Ronz (talk) 18:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If you think it's nonsense, we're talking past each other. Let me write the article, then, if it doesn't meet our standards, you can nominate it for deletion. Don't nominate it before I've written it. :-) --GRuban (talk) 19:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No one is stopping you from creating the article. If you seriously believe your comment about scandal-mongering, then you're likely just wasting your time by using poor, even unacceptable, references. I think it would be helpful for you to explain what you mean, rather than dismissing my concerns. --Ronz (talk) 19:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll write the article so it meets Biographies of living persons, using references that meet Reliable sources. That's what we're supposed to do, so I'll do it. That's spelled out in reasonable detail at those links. I don't know what what else you want me to explain. Oh, I'll also be using the humor of User:Baseball_Bugs, the wisdom of User:Newyorkbrad, the photography skills of User:Durova, and the kindness of User:Phaedriel. OK, that last is impossible for mere mortals, but I'll try. :-) --GRuban (talk) 19:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL. Let me know if I can help.
 * While I agree that business success, bravado, and political aspirations can all be notable, I'm not sure if they are in his case. I'll wait and see what refs you choose and how you use them, especially in terms of WP:BIO. --Ronz (talk) 19:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Ready for your review before going live. See User:GRuban/Dell Schanze, and please comment (if short, here, if extensive, on the "article" talk page). --GRuban (talk) 08:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Userspace article
At a glance, I'd say absolutely not for the very reasons brought up before. No offense. You've obviously put a great deal of work into this. --Ronz (talk) 16:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. I'll wait a bit to see if you have specific suggestions that will make you happier with the article, and if so, I'll see if I can implement them, so we can reach some sort of consensus. Otherwise, we'll have to go to the agree-to-disagree + mainspace + AFD route. I'd much prefer the consensus idea. --GRuban (talk) 16:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Given what I see just skimming it a bit, I'm for immediate deletion. If anyone provides evidence for keeping it, I'll look at it closer. --Ronz (talk) 16:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you be specific as to your reasons for deletion? --GRuban (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I see you're active elsewhere, so I'll take that as a "no". A shame we can't at least try to come to a consensus, we seem like reasonable people. See you at the AFD, I guess. --GRuban (talk) 17:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * To expand a bit, I don't think the article begins to address most of the concerns brought up with past articles. Are any of the sources up to BLP standards?  Certainly none of the few which I examined, and that's enough to require extensive changes, if not outright deletion per db-g10 --Ronz (talk) 17:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * They're perfectly reliable sources - respectable newspapers, magazines, and television. Here, let's be specific. Pick one source, and explain why you don't think it meets WP:RS. I'll either agree, and remove or replace it, or will explain why I believe it does. --GRuban (talk) 17:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you participate in the past discussions or not? If you did, you should recall that WP:BLP requires more. --Ronz (talk) 17:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, I didn't. The first time I saw this article was after it was deleted. Let's be specific. Please pick one source and point out what part of WP:BLP it doesn't meet. I'll either agree and ... --GRuban (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

It's deleted. How about you pick one source that doesn't have the problems mentioned in this discussion? That's what I was looking for. I didn't find one, but I stopped looking when I saw that the first few independent references were exactly the type that were cause for concern previously. --Ronz (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Specific sources
OK, let's go in the order I wrote it.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dell_Schanze&oldid=369012282 The source there is VARBusiness, "a USA magazine covering Computer Applications... 20 years in print", which is being used to source business statistics, and the fact there was a dispute with the Better Business Bureau. For all this it seems to be a reliable source. Agree? --GRuban (talk) 19:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

To save time, I'll pretend that's good, though please do confirm. Next:

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dell_Schanze&direction=next&oldid=369012282 The source is "'Super Dell' files for mayor of Saratoga Springs", Donald W. Meyers, Salt Lake Tribune. From our article, "The Salt Lake Tribune is the largest-circulated daily newspaper in the U.S. city of Salt Lake City, Utah.... founded in 1871 ... circulation 128,000 daily ... [listed in the] 2007 Top 100 Daily Newspapers in the U.S. by Circulation ..." The words "tabloid", "rag", and "scandal-sheet" are conspicuous by their absence. When information was leaked to a tabloid, heads rolled. Good enough?

3. Same revision, third source is the State of Utah. A primary source, but for sourcing a number, hopefully it'll do. Yes? --GRuban (talk) 19:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you going to address WP:BLP issues at all? --Ronz (talk) 20:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I certainly hope so. (Unless you mean "no negative material"; but BLP doesn't say that.) "In a nutshell', WP:BLP says "Material about living persons must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoiding original research." I did my best to do that. Of course, I may be missing something as the author, a fresh pair of eyes may well see something I don't, so I welcome your help. Neutrality seems to be the hardest, since it's an opinion; verifiability and avoiding original research I'm quite sure I did, neutrality I can only do my best at. HJ seems to say it's slanted, but hasn't said where yet; since I wrote it, I may be missing where, and how to unslant, but I'm perfectly willing to look. If that's your objection, please say what, where, and how to fix it, and I'll try to adjust. But what issue do you mean, specifically? --GRuban (talk) 20:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess you're standing by your statement, "You can't find a single non-trivial reference about Bill Clinton or Richard Nixon or John Edwards or Mark Sanford or ...(what is it about politicians, anyway?) that doesn't include scandal mongering." I don't believe that such viewpoint is compatible with WP:BLP. --Ronz (talk) 20:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, that's out of left field. Or at least, I don't understand how to respond to it constructively. Do you have a specific objection to a specific item in the article? We don't have to talk similes about Clinton or Nixon any more, we have the real article. I'd really like to address any specific issues you have with the real article in question. Please, pretend I can't read your mind. Show me. --GRuban (talk) 20:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I'm trying to stick to what I see as the main problem.  Let me try to explain:
 * I wrote earlier (above), "If you seriously believe your comment about scandal-mongering, then you're likely just wasting your time by using poor, even unacceptable, references. I think it would be helpful for you to explain what you mean, rather than dismissing my concerns."
 * You never explained your meaning, but instead went ahead and created a new article.
 * I'd forgotten the details from this and the other discussions when I went to review your new article. I read through the first section and checked the references.  I then read the discussion above to remind myself of the details, and gave you my first comment.
 * While I didn't realize you hadn't been involved in the work on the previous version, you've seen and participated in all the discussions that I've linked at the article talk page. I believe that these discussions give you some perspective about concerns from others, all similar to my own.
 * I'm saying you've not addressed the concerns from the previous article. Instead, you've ignored them.  When I asked, "How about you pick one source that doesn't have the problems mentioned in this discussion? " I was asking for a source without scandal-mongering. --Ronz (talk) 21:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah. Thanks, now I understand. You believe that WP:BLP forbids the use of sources with scandal-mongering. Correct? Before we go further, can you say yes or no to that question, and then say which of the 3 I've listed is a source with scandal-mongering? --GRuban (talk) 21:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope. I believe you're ignoring the problems that resulted in the previous version being deleted.  I believe you're standing by your statement, "You can't find a single non-trivial reference about Bill Clinton or Richard Nixon or John Edwards or Mark Sanford or ...(what is it about politicians, anyway?) that doesn't include scandal mongering."  I believe the first two sources you list above should not be used in the manner that you've done in the final version of your article, and that they're poor sources that probably should not be used at all. --Ronz (talk) 22:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and endorsed the DRV, trying to make clear the problem we've been discussing. I appreciate the time you've spent discussing this with me. I wish the relevant policies and guidelines were more clear on these issues. --Ronz (talk) 17:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

File:A_Mysterious_Presence;_Macrophotography_of_Plants.jpg
I have tagged File:A_Mysterious_Presence;_Macrophotography_of_Plants.jpg as no rationale, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Some examples can be found at Use rationale examples. Please also consider using or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags/Non-free. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 03:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

May 2010
Please refrain from removing image deletion notices from images you have uploaded unless you have addressed the noted concern. You need to provide a license tag for any image you upload, regardless of whether the file is free or non-free. -  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 00:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Dell Schanze
I'm afraid I've deleted that article because the individual appears to be marginally notable at best and almost the entire article, while sourced, dealt with very negative aspects for which he isn't notable, thus I felt I was obliged to remove it per WP:BLP. If you want the source code, I can email it to you on the promise that you won;t repost it on here. Best, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   18:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I believe you'll find the individual is perfectly Notable, and the negative aspects are in proportion to their contribution to his notability. He's a self-made multi-millionaire, a daredevil, and a regular candidate for important office, including the Libertarian party nominee for governor, and the sources that took note of all this were quite extensive. A much worse version survived the only AFD it faced with a keep, and I rewrote the article from scratch since then. If you believe it doesn't meet our tougher standards since, fine, that's cause for another AFD, but not for a speedy deletion. You'll notice another admin was just about to decline the speedy tag; in most WP:DRVs not being an obvious speedy is taken as grounds for restoration and at least AFD. --GRuban (talk) 18:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to let you know that I closed the deletion review as endorsing the deletion of the Schanze article. I suspect a second attempt will meet with the same problems: not very famous and reporting wholly negative. The moral, I suppose, is something like "do not piss off the jerks who write newspapers or they will make you look stupid". If you want the text, please let me know. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Why
Why tell him to stop digging? If people want to support him, fine, but let's not kid ourselves about what he's about.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Because he's a good guy. He's under tremendous stress, which is affecting his judgment; imagine how you'd feel if people were publicly discussing firing you from your job. He clearly values Wikipedia, I don't think this is any less valuable to him than their job is to most people. That's what he's about. and why am I telling him? Because I think he is a good guy, and a net asset. I would not touch the area he works in with a ten foot pole; but someone does have to. Because he does, I, and most of us, don't have to. That's worth a lot. --GRuban (talk) 14:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thank for for the star and kind words. Herostratus (talk) 02:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

re Meetup
Thanks! Hope you all had a good time. See you next time I hope! Herostratus (talk) 03:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Andre/i/y/j Stepanov
Nice work on the diplomat, and I agree that he seems notable. I still believe that the pages need to be temporarily deleted, to sort out the mess that has been left behind, but otherwise you are correct. The full explanation of what I believe needs to be done can be found at the Administrators' noticeboard thread. Regards, WFC (talk) 04:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not 100% sure what is needed here, have asked a Q at WP:AN. Once I'm clear on what is desired, then I will make the necessary changes. Mjroots (talk) 07:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Eido Shimano dispute
Hi G- I appreciated your support on my proposed changes to the Shimano page. However, I have been meeting with steep opposition, especially from user Slp1 who now has started a BLP entry saying there was unanimous consensus against my changes - which is clearly untrue, as you are my witness. Would you mind giving your two cents at WP:BLP/N. I even made changes sense that I felt better improved the passage and added greater clarity, accuracy and readability.Tao2911 (talk) 22:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you, for your comment at Articles for deletion/Daryl Wine Bar and Restaurant. I happen to agree with you, the coverage received from WP:RS secondary sources is indeed both "national" and "regional", not simply "local", and have started a discussion of The New York Times being distinguished as a "regional" versus "local" source, at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * (Not asking you to comment at the WP:RSN thread, just wanted to get some clarity regarding the source, The New York Times.) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 17:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Cirt please see WP:CANVASS regarding inappropriate notification -- "Posting messages to groups of users selected on the basis of their known opinions – for example, sending notifications only to those who supported a particular viewpoint in a previous discussion, or who state on their user page (e.g. through a userbox or user category) that they hold a particular opinion ("votestacking")". That one message contains all the information needed to deduce this to be inappropriate by that standard.Griswaldo (talk) 17:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In this case it's all right, I actually got to the AFD from seeing the RSN post. :-) --GRuban (talk) 17:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

VPC
— raeky  T  23:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

You might find this wp:dab discussion interesting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#Agree_on_the_goal_and_all_else_should_follow  Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 00:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Courage comes in the four year size.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Courage comes in the four year size.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted.  howcheng  {chat} 18:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)   howcheng   {chat} 18:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:General Green Pea.gif
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:General Green Pea.gif. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Down With The King.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Down With The King.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Feng Shui RPG Cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Feng Shui RPG Cover.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Avraham Shmulevich
As a contributor to this article (and to its previous AFD back in 2006), you may be interested to know I have renominated it for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Articles for deletion/Avraham Shmulevich (2nd nomination). Robofish (talk) 03:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Marvin Breckinridge broadcasting.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Marvin Breckinridge broadcasting.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- Kelly hi! 03:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Trying to implement your suggestion for Okanagan Valley (wine)
Hey GRuban, another editor and I are trying to implement your suggestion from the RN board about having a line that mentions the Sonoran in the Okanagan and the dissenting views. This other editor has put up a proposed wording here Talk:Okanagan_Valley_(wine_region) with Skookum offering up an alternative wording. If you're interested would you be willing to take a look at the proposed wording and offer your view? Though, if you're sick of this whole fiasco, I certainly understand. :) AgneCheese/Wine 06:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled
Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:
 * This permission does not give you any special status or authority
 * Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
 * You may wish to display the Autopatrolled top icon and/or the User wikipedia/autopatrolled userbox on your user page
 * If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it
 * If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 11:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Tree shaping
There is a proposed Topic Ban for Blackash and Slowart on Tree shaping related articles at the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents As you have had some involvement with these editors in question, you may wish to comment. Blackash  have a chat 00:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

George Hugh Niederauer
Thanks for the image. That article has been needing one for a while. Best regards, - Alvincura (talk) 17:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! --GRuban (talk) 20:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Research survey invitation
Greetings GRuban-

My name is Randall Livingstone, and I am a doctoral student at the University of Oregon, studying digital media and online community. I am posting to invite you to participate in my research study exploring the work of Wikipedia editors who are members of WikiProject: Countering Systemic Bias. The online survey should take 20 to 25 minutes to complete and can be found here:

https://oregon.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_cSHzuwaQovaZ6ss

Your responses will help online communication researchers like me to better understand the collaborations, challenges, and purposeful work of Wikipedia editors like you. In addition, at the end of the survey you will have the opportunity to express your interest in a follow-up online interview with the researcher.

This research project has been reviewed and approved by the Wikimedia Research Committee as well as the Office for Protection of Human Subjects at the University of Oregon. For a detailed description of the project, please visit its Meta page. This survey is voluntary, and your confidentiality will be protected. You will have the choice of using your Wikipedia User Name during the research or creating a unique pseudonym. You may skip any question you choose, and you may withdraw at any time. By completing the survey, you are providing consent to participate in the research.

If you have any questions about the study, please contact me via my Talk Page (UOJComm) or via email. My faculty advisor is Dr. Ryan Light. If you have any questions regarding your rights as a research participant, please contact the Office for Protection of Human Subjects at the University of Oregon.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

Randall Livingstone School of Journalism & Communication University of Oregon UOJComm (talk) 04:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Mother and Child.gif
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Mother and Child.gif. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Moritatensänger an der Drehorgel.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Moritatensänger an der Drehorgel.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Alexandra Govere
No prob. I did try to look through the sources when I first found it, and tried looking for sources elsewhere too. It's not like a take any pleasure one way or another in deleting an article, and others find sources for it, that's fine by me. When I am informed good sources exist for it, I sometimes exhibit an almost addictive tendency to improve the article myself, as a kind of personal project. But thanks for the compliment. It was very nice of you. :-) Nightscream (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Linda McMahon
Hey, I got your message, and yes, there are multiple sources. I didn't follow the noticeboard and I'm sorry, I know you were at work trying to resolve the issue. Ok now, there are a lot of references saying she signed Owen Hart's contract: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/06/22/politics/main6607909.shtml http://www.journalinquirer.com/articles/2010/09/03/page_one/doc4c80f1564e99e965394771.txt http://www.ctmirror.org/sites/default/files/documents/Complaint.pdf

her congressional testimony is pretty good, because it asks her a lot of contract related questions. it could be better, because most of what she did was deflect questions about the company's drug policy http://blogs.courant.com/capitol_watch/Linda%20McMahon%27s%20congressional%20testimony.pdf

she inserted the death clause into wrestler contracts, a hot button issue during her 2010 race: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2010-10-18-adwatch18_ST_N.htm

I know there's more out there, but it is not that easy to find. --Sc r ew ba ll 23 talk 15:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

pic request
Hi - please see contact details which may be a good place to request a picture release. (out an about Off2riorob) - Avoidours49 (talk) 18:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I didn't see that. Emailed request. --GRuban (talk) 19:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Charles Kushner
Thank you for the improvements you made to the article. It's my hope that the two editors warring over the extremely peripheral Wilda Diaz will now go back where they came from. You made wikipedia better today. Major props. David in DC (talk) 14:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Philip A. Payton, Jr.
The DYK project (nominate) 00:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

AFD
Please comment at Articles for deletion/Jonathon Sharkey (5th nomination). Thanks! SOXROX (talk) 04:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Excessive groundless noms
I've left a warning at User_talk:Dkchana. --Lexein (talk) 23:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * But you didn't weigh on his other deletion nominations? I found a number of sources for Articles for deletion/Unidentified (2nd nomination) and Articles for deletion/Me & You, Us, Forever.--GRuban (talk) 12:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * We do what we can. I have now applied my avoirdupois to the scales of justice. --Lexein (talk) 21:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There were others so prodded and others similarly nominated. Time for a large scale fish fry.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

You eyes, please
I've just completed a 22X expansion of Umbrage (film) and would appreciate another set of eyes to go through it to check for typos and such. If you have the time. More though, I wish some input on a possible DYK to share this article on Main page. Any suggestions? Thanks,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Made a couple of tweaks. As commented on the article talk page, I think the review section is too long; I shortened it a bit, but I believe more should be done. For DYK - how about:
 * ... that Umbrage is a vampire film that doesn't use the word "vampire" throughout its duration? --GRuban (talk) 14:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I went over the article several times, trying to think of a hook. I like that!
 * ... that Umbrage is a vampire film that never mentions the word "vampire"?
 * (don't forget film title italics) --Lexein (talk) 15:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

RE :OUTING
Gruban, Ihear you, however, the user in questions has never stated that's there name. Per WP:OUTING:

Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address.....

You get the idea. If the user doesn't say there name, we can any assumnptions, even if we think it's obvious It's outing. @-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons► Moon Base Alpha -@ 18:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Then you should probably repeat on Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents where the outing is continued, no? --GRuban (talk) 21:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi, this message is to let you know about disambiguation links you've recently created. A link to a disambiguation page is almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.


 * James Jones Literary Society (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * was linked to William Morrow

Any suggestions for improving this automated tool are welcome. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Writer-in-Residence redirect
Hello -- I had already asked about this, see User_talk:Elonka for the discussion. Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! That looks like agreement. I implemented it. --GRuban (talk) 20:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Appreciation
My grateful thanks to you,, for your understanding, astuteness and compassion.

Regards,

Davina.R (talk) 14:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC) Davina.R

Governing hierarchy and structure of WP
Hi GRuban:

You commented earlier upon this proposed addition to the page Wikipedia outlining the formal structure of WP. Since your comments, a number of further changes have been suggested and implemented. Could you take another look at this proposal and comment further? Thanks for your assistance. Brews ohare (talk) 20:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources
You are being quoted as being in favour of including a quote from Yeong E. Kim based on a fringe unpublished non-peer reviewed paper. Perhaps you would like to comment on why you think it has due weight. Reliable_sources/Noticeboard IRWolfie- (talk) 16:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Just to let you know that I refer to the RS/N discussion on Yeong E. Kim in the arbcom case against me. See Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. As you also took a significant part in that discussion, maybe you should glance over if I misrepresented you. --POVbrigand (talk) 11:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Commented there. Gee, seems like Cold Fusion is controversial. Who would have thought. --GRuban (talk) 19:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It is heart warming for me to read your assessment of my work (and the frustration it sometimes causes). Thank you for that.
 * Case closed, unfortunately no uninvolved admin cared to comment. It looks like even in an Arbcom case the uninvolved editors shun the topic. --POVbrigand (talk) 08:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. I would, however, urge you to take some of the criticism into account as well. Even though most of their comments were unfounded, some of them should be noted. It is admittedly difficult to be civil all the time, but it is an important goal to strive for. --GRuban (talk) 15:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Formal organization ( revised and updated)
A revised version of WP:Formal organization is proposed for inclusion in the article Wikipedia and a RfC is posted. It is found here. Can you kindly take a look at this request for comment?

Thank you in advance. Brews ohare (talk) 17:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar
It really was a weighty decision, and I'm just glad I was able to arrive at the correct choice. I'm glad someone appreciated my hard work! ;) &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Herta Feely
Orlady (talk) 16:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Sarah's Choice for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sarah's Choice 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/Sarah's Choice (2nd nomination) 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..  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Elizabeth Catlett.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Elizabeth Catlett.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point. I was more naive about permissions then, and assumed that encouragement to download was the same as a license, which I now understand it isn't. I'll write the photographer. --GRuban (talk) 17:51, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

You're invited! New England Wikimedia General Meeting
Message delivered by Dominic at 09:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC). Note: You can remove your name from this meetup invite list here.

Your HighBeam account is ready!
Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know: Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 20:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
 * Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
 * If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
 * The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
 * To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
 * If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi.  Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
 * HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
 * Show off your HighBeam access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 03:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Chris Lintott
Much appreciated, thank you. Chrislintott (talk) 07:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:RWRPG.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:RWRPG.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Is your comment at RSN on a matter being misinterpreted?
If you get a chance, could you take a look at Talk:Alpha Phi. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that was quick. Dougweller (talk) 13:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

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

--The Olive Branch 19:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #2)

 * To add your named to the newsletter delivery list, please sign up here

'''This edition The Olive Branch is focusing on a 2nd dispute resolution RfC. Two significant proposals have been made. Below we describe the background and recent progress and detail those proposals. Please review them and follow the link at the bottom to comment at the RfC. We need your input!'''

Until late 2003, Jimmy Wales was the arbiter in all major disputes. After the Mediation Committee and the Arbitration Committee were founded, Wales delegated his roles of dispute resolution to these bodies. In addition to these committees, the community has developed a number of informal processes of dispute resolution. At its peak, over 17 dispute resolution venues existed. Disputes were submitted in each venue in a different way.
 * Background

Due to the complexity of Wikipedia dispute resolution, members of the community were surveyed in April 2012 about their experiences with dispute resolution. In general, the community believes that dispute resolution is too hard to use and is divided among too many venues. Many respondents also reported their experience with dispute resolution had suffered due to a shortage of volunteers and backlogging, which may be due to the disparate nature of the process.

An evaluation of dispute resolution forums was made in May this year, in which data on response and resolution time, as well as success rates, was collated. This data is here.


 * Progress so far

Leading off from the survey in April and the evaluation in May, several changes to dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) were proposed. Rather than using a wikitext template to bring disputes to DRN, editors used a new javascript form. This form was simpler to use, but also standardised the format of submissions and applied a word limit so that DRN volunteers could more easily review disputes. A template to summarise, and a robot to maintain the noticeboard, were also created.

As a result of these changes, volunteers responded to disputes in a third of the time, and resolved them 60% faster when compared to May. Successful resolution of disputes increased by 17%. Submissions were 25% shorter by word count.(see Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Statistics - August compared to May)

Outside of DRN other simplification has taken place. The Mediation Cabal was closed in August, and Wikiquette assistance was closed in September. Nevertheless, around fifteen different forums still exist for the resolution of Wikipedia disputes.

Given the success of the past efforts at DR reform, the current RFC proposes we implement:
 * Proposed changes

1) A submission gadget for every DR venue tailored to the unique needs of that forum. 2) A universal dispute resolution wizard, accessible from Dispute resolution.
 * Similar to the one that was deployed, with great success, to the DRN.
 * Structured based on the specific issues most commonly dealt with at each forum.
 * Designed to improve the quality of requests for DR and the efficiency of DR at that forum.
 * Applicable at following noticeboards: Dispute resolution, Neutrality, Reliable Sources, Original Research, Biographies of Living Persons, Notability noticeboard, Fringe theories, Conflict of Interest, Ethnic and cultural conflicts, External links, Third opinion, Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee.
 * Forms will merely fill out any existing templates (such as Arbcom's) and create a markup-free form in line with specific noticeboard practices otherwise.
 * Example form fields: What pages are involved? What users are involved? What is the issue? What resolution is desired?
 * This wizard would ask a series of structured questions about the nature of the dispute.
 * It would then determine to which dispute resolution venue a dispute should be sent.
 * If the user agrees with the wizard's selection, s/he would then be asked a series of questions about the details of the dispute (for example, the usernames of the involved editors).
 * The wizard would then submit a request for dispute resolution to the selected venue, in that venue's required format (using the logic of each venue's specialized form, as in proposal #1). The wizard would not suggest a venue which the user has already identified in answer to a question like "What other steps of dispute resolution have you tried?".
 * Similar to the way the DRN request form operates, this would be enabled for all users. A user could still file a request for dispute resolution manually if they so desired.
 * Coding such a wizard would be complex, but the DRN gadget would be used as an outline.
 * Once the universal request form is ready (coded by those who helped create the DRN request form) the community will be asked to try out and give feedback on the wizard. The wizard's logic in deciding the scope and requirements of each venue would be open to change by the community at any time.

3) Additionally, we're seeking any ideas on how we can attract and retain more dispute resolution volunteers.

Please share your thoughts at the RfC.

--The Olive Branch 18:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Information
I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My 76 Strat (talk) 10:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Reply
We're talking about different articles. You're talking about the 9/11 article, I'm talking about the collapse of the World Trade Center. The one small positive contribution that my appeal to ArbCom resulted in was to have a "see also" link put into the collapse article. But it remains true that Wikipedia does not want to be place where one can go to be actually informed about the content and status of the alternative theories about 9/11. (Many readers of the collapse article are seeking information to help them decide whether one or another conspiracy theory is right, or just partly right, about some particular fact. They now meet an article that pretends those theories, and a great many facts that the theories cite, sometimes entirely correctly, don't exist. So their questions remain unanswered and their quest continues, often needlessly.) It's an editorial line that has been determined by consensus. So long as it stands, I've got nothing to contribute. And I'm not allowed to contribute, anyway.--Thomas B (talk) 09:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

SVG OTRS
Shep Talk  04:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Murder of Deanna Cremin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page WGBH (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) 16:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Project for RfA nominators
As one of the supporters of a related proposal in the 2013 RfC on RfA reform, you are invited to join the new WikiProject for RfA nominators. Please come and help shape this initiative. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 21:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Braco (gazer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Serbian (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) 12:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Sinister gingers
Well said! Pburka (talk) 23:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Better source request for File:El Hadj M&
Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia: You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.
 * File:El Hadj M&

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 21:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

File:El Hadj M'Hamed El Anka plays the Oud.jpg missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as: is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
 * File:El Hadj M'Hamed El Anka plays the Oud.jpg

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion notice
You participated in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people) so I thought you might want to comment at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Health & Morals of Apprentices Act 1802
Thanks for adding an image to this article! :) I didn't even think of adding images to an 'Act' article before you added one. Thanks very much! Staceydolxx (talk) 21:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome - but if I may say so, your image was even better. --GRuban (talk) 01:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Miss America, 1945 Bess Myerson Cover.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Miss America, 1945 Bess Myerson Cover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Crotchety
[As she has remarked so often :] Bishonen always tetchy, difficult personality! Better leave problems  and admin tools to easy-going laid-back Bishzilla!   bishzilla    ROA R R! !     17:46, 31 May 2013 (UTC).
 * Heh. I was wondering if you'd notice. :-). Carry on, oh scourge of evildoers and defender of innocent. (Or the other way around.) --GRuban (talk) 17:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Other way around is feisty Darwinbish!  darwin bish  BITE   ☠  18:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC).

thanks for the irony and the spellcheck
Been a long time since I wrote that passage, thanks for the edit, and the chuckle.Skookum1 (talk) 08:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe "sarcasm" is better than "irony", but still worth the chuckle.Skookum1 (talk) 08:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, oh great Wiki-Sasquatch! --GRuban (talk) 08:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Need your opinion on a BLP matter
Hi. Can you offer your thoughts in this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 15:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

2nd Annual Wikimedia New England General Meeting
You are invited to the 2nd Annual Wikimedia New England General Meeting, on 20 July 2013 in Boston! We will be talking about the future of the chapter, including GLAM, Wiki Loves Monuments, and where we want to take our chapter in the future! EdwardsBot (talk) 10:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Aw, shucks, thanks. :-) --GRuban (talk) 23:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=570544858 your edit] to The Debut 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) 15:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2011}} became associated with the project, and the film was able to garner a grant from NAATA ( [National Asian American Telecommunications Association]). The filmmakers were able to set up the
 * Thank you, BracketBot! --GRuban (talk) 17:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Your nomination for WP:LAME
Has been acted on. I hope you don't mind that I plagiarized borrowed your wording to writing this entry. -- llywrch (talk) 18:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Heh. Thanks - I feel so proud to have contributed. Or maybe ashamed for the Wikipedia. Is it possible to feel both? Surely there's a German word for that emotion. --GRuban (talk) 14:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know the German word, but the English word would be "conflicted". You know you're an established editor when that describes how you feel about Wikipedia.--llywrch (talk) 15:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

When God Writes Your Love Story
Hi George,

Because you have been involved in discussions surrounding the When God Writes Your Love Story article, I thought that you should be notified of the article's current featured article review. Any constructive comments you would be willing to provide there would be greatly appreciated.

Neelix (talk) 19:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I see the review has been closed rather quickly and dramatically. I imagine jps will renom in a few months, and this time won't be as quick to offend everyone within sight, so it might be useful to try to address some of the issues as best as possible. --GRuban (talk) 13:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Kosh
I just noticed Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. I don't know whether you saw User_talk:Fluffernutter, but it sounds like it when you talk about editors trying to support and backing off. Kosh didn't help himself with the poorly thought out post at Commons, or where-ever it was.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  19:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was one of the examples I was referring to. So it goes. --GRuban (talk) 21:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter
Books and Bytes Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013 by , Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved... New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted. New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis?? New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration Read the full newsletter ''Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)''

Disambiguation link notification for November 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cerrie Burnell, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Metro and Scholastic (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) 09:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Cerrie Burnell
I see you found the reason and dabbed to links. Thanks. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Cold Fusion revisited
Hi GRuban,

remember when you gave me support in my struggle not to get banned for editing cold fusion ? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive109#POVbrigand)

Thank you again for representing the situation simply the way it was.

You might like this news article in the wall street journal "Market Watch": http://www.marketwatch.com/story/cyclone-power-technologies-adds-renowned-nuclear-physicist-dr-yeong-kim-to-its-technical-advisory-team-2013-12-03

btw, a bit later they got me banned anyhow. So stuff wikipedia :-) It is just so very very sad that all those rules/policies don't mean a thing when people want to kick you off the project so they can keep their POV up.

Cheers, POVBrigand --POVbrigand (talk) 23:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hrr. Here? Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive117? The ban does seem a bit strict for one incident of WP:POINT. But it's not as if you have completely clean hands, and there is a specifically stated way to get it lifted, and, well - editing with the explicit intention to either promote or oppose a particular point of view is not a good idea. That's not really what we're supposed to be about. We're supposed to document the world's knowledge, not really "the parts of it that agree with my worldview". So, while I am sorry for your ban, it's not hopeless, and they did have some reasoning behind it. --GRuban (talk) 02:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem, I know that my intentions have always been fully in line with wikipedia's NPOV principles. I might have slipped here and there sometimes, but that is why we are supposed to help each other on this project, to get that sorted out. However, when I started to edit that contagious topic, I walked into a minefield and I was not prepared for that. Simple factual statements were dismissed as "polite POV pushing" and once the decision has been made that your reasoning cannot be tolerated anymore, it's just a matter of time until they find a mishap that they will present to the boards.
 * But I didn't come here to wail, really. I just wanted to show you that Yeong E. Kim, which I had to work ridiculously hard for to get him mentioned in an article, is now hired by real companies that want to know more about the topic. --POVbrigand (talk) 08:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 14:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

gun control rfc
As you were involved in a previous discussion on this topic, I am notifying you of a new RFC on this topic. Talk:Gun_controlGaijin42 (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

New England Wikipedia Day @ MIT: Saturday Jan 18
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Notice of a discussion that may be of interest to you
There is a Split proposal discussion on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page that may be of interest to you. Lightbreather (talk) 04:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

WP Countering Systemic Bias in the Signpost
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 00:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation
Your upload of File:BW-Shoshong.PNG or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Micro-inequity, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Gyp and Sinister (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) 09:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Not in this case though, DPL bot, as those disambiguation pages also describe the words in question. --GRuban (talk) 16:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

April 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=603134491 your edit] to Elizabeth Truss 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:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "A field day for the Tory old guard"], by Andy McSmith, The Independent, 16 November 2009  [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/6525668/Liz-Truss-won-seat-from-

You're invited!
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Notice of RfC and request for participation
There is an RfC in which your participation would be greatly appreciated: Thank you. --Lightbreather (talk) 15:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Talk:Gun_control

Notice of RfC 2 and request for participation
There is an RfC on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page which may be of interest to editors who participated in "RfC: Remove Nazi gun control argument?" on the Gun control talk page. Thank you. --Lightbreather (talk) 22:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * RfC: Replace existing Nazi gun control paragraphs?
 * Just an FYI: I moved your vote from the Threaded discussion section to the Survey section of this RfC. Lightbreather (talk) 17:08, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Didn't realize it was in the wrong place. --GRuban (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

The Toleration Act 1688
Hello. I've noticed your recent edit relating to this Act. The short title of this Act was given by the Statute Law Revision Act 1948. If this Act was cited as the Toleration Act 1689 in a legal document, that document would on the face of it be legally invalid. If the Act was in fact passed in 1689 that would on the face of it be irrelevant, because Parliament has on the face of it only decreed that this Act may be cited as "the Toleration Act 1688" and has not on the face of it authorised its citation by any other name, and what Parliament says in that respect is final ("parliamentary sovereignty"). Please bear in mind also that "short title" is a legal term of art, and the field "short title" in the infobox should certainly give the official one, and not a name that private persons have invented (no matter how much of an improvement it is on the real short title), because that is not a short title. Thank you. James500 (talk) 06:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * My edit was based on the simple fact that the article is called Act of Toleration 1689. If you think it should be named differently, we should move it to the correct title. We should not have it titled Act of Toleration 1689 but referred to as The Toleration Act 1688 in the text, that's just silly. --GRuban (talk) 03:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Useitorloseit_and_Ta-Nehisi_Coates_-_request_for_topic_ban. Thank you. Gamaliel ( talk ) 22:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=614639892 your edit] to Midge Decter 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:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * in a 1980 essay for Commentary entitled "The Boys on the Beach." http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/the-boys-on-the-beach/ "The Boys on the Beach", by Midge

Your Comment to Lightbreather
Your comment to Lightbreather that she should drop the stick was appropriate. However, your suggestion that she and Scalhotrod collaborate on an article as a way of moving forward, while well-meaning, not only showed a lack of empathy for Lightbreather, but comes across as deeply dismissive of everything that she has said. Did you intend to be deeply dismissive of her concerns, or did you only mean to be telling her to move on? If you only meant to be telling her to move on, it would have been more appropriate to advise her to work on an article by herself. As it is, it came across as meaning that, in order to be an accepted member of the larger community, she has to acculturate herself to working with the "good old boys" whom she dislikes and has difficulty working with? If you did not mean that, then I suggest that you strike that part of your suggestion. As she reads it, I am sure that she will take that as meaning that, in order to be accepted as members of the community, female editors not only have to contribute to articles, but have to immerse themselves in a male-dominated culture that she sees as deeply offensive. Please consider striking that part of your comment. I think that you didn't understand how deeply hurtful it would be seen by her. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. I guess that the part of my comment about us being here to make an encyclopedia didn't register. So I shall repeat it. We're here to make an encyclopedia. We aren't here to be "accepted members of a larger community", except to the extent that helps us make an encyclopedia. In general the community is very useful for that. But it's not an end in itself. Some of us forget that at times, and think this is just another chat room, just another group of people who gather for the sake of gathering, and, by the way, occasionally produce encyclopedia articles. It's not. We're not supposed to be here to stand on our rights, or on our hurt pride, no matter how right we are. We're here to write an encyclopedia. If we have a great hand holding moment, where we settle who is right and who is wrong, and who is an accepted member of the larger community, and who isn't ... and then those accepted members don't go and write articles, we've wasted our time. If I were to follow up to my comment, I would repeat that. But I guess you would think that would be even more deeply hurtful. So I won't.
 * I firmly believe that we need to be civil and empathetic to each other, so that we can better write encyclopedia articles. I firmly believe that we need more female participation, so that we can better write encyclopedia articles. I also firmly believe that if we ever see community building, empathy, civility and participation as goals in themselves (which no doubt what you didn't mean to say, but what it darn sounds like) we will have lost site of our real goal, which is to write an encyclopedia.
 * She doesn't have to write an encyclopedia by cooperating with Scalhotrod on an article. There are a zillion potential articles out there. But she does have to pick one, and write it or otherwise improve it. Or she isn't writing an encyclopedia, she's playing chat room.
 * Let me rephrase, just in case my meaning isn't clear. I am in no way saying that "in order to be an accepted member of the larger community, she has to acculturate herself to working with the "good old boys" whom she dislikes and has difficulty working with." I am, instead, saying, that being an accepted member of the larger community should not be her primary goal. Her primary goal should be to write encyclopedia articles. If she can do that and get along with the Scalhotrods of the world, that would certainly be preferable, but not required. What is required is realizing that her primary goal should be just that, writing darn good encyclopedia articles. By hook or by crook. As a side effect, I suspect it will make getting along with the Scalhotrods easier, because suddenly it will come into focus that they, too, are here to write darn good encyclopedia articles, and what do you know, she has some skill that can help them, and they have some skills that can help her, and glory be, improvement is seen all around. But that's the side effect. Not the goal. --GRuban (talk) 19:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess I can write part of that without adding to the pain. Will try. --GRuban (talk) 19:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That is somewhat better, but, since you recognize that the primary purpose of the community is to improve the encyclopedia, the suggestion that she work with Scalhotrod on articles still strikes me as strange. Your attitude now strikes me as utopian (noble and impracticable).  Either you don't understand the intensity of the dislike between certain Wikipedians, or you think that such dislike can easily be overcome somehow.  Telling her to go off and work on articles was in order, but telling her to work with Scalhotrod on articles, since not a statement about the need to acculturate herself into a culture which she (perhaps rightfully) despises, just doesn't seem to follow.  I won't say more.  I still suggest that you strike that part of your post, but I don't think that you understand why.  We will disagree.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You are too down on nobility and impracticality. This whole wikipedia is noble and impracticable. A bunch of people who don't know each other working for free, making their work available for free? That's pretty impractical. Pretty noble. It can't possibly work in theory, it only works in practice. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikipedia Same with this. People are more noble than you think, if they will only give themselves and each other a chance to be. I still believe that if they had only tried, it would have worked. They didn't. So it goes. --GRuban (talk) 13:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Page Needs Archiving
Your talk page needs archiving. I see that it hasn't been archived since 2005. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

You da person!
Thanks for the call out on the GG talk page. I was going to respond, but after several tries decided my language was too guttural.Two kinds of pork Makin'Bacon 17:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

ANI
Please do not include links to off-wiki websites that includes personal information of others. Continuing to do so will result in a block. Best regards, Mike V  •  Talk  18:47, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I have suppressed these links. Please do not re-post them. James F. (talk) 19:00, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * OK. Still disagree that they are WP:OUTING, since they do not contain personal information as listed there, but shall not repost. --GRuban (talk) 19:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * GRuban, I suggest that you restore your vote without the diffs and add that your evidence was removed by Tutelary and later oversighted on request from Tutelary although your comment didn't include any personal information. I know from experience that it's no use to explain that you didn't "out" anyone. A few day ago, Tutelary had a user's admission of off-wiki canvassing and my comments on the incident oversighted. Don't waste your time restoring the diffs because Tutelary will have them revdeled again. I don't know what is going on with our oversighters. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * GRuban, I think Sonicyouth86's advice is sound and you are welcome to include your support or opposition without the diffs links. I can say that the matter is being discussed further on the oversight email list. If you (or anyone else for that matter) has concerns at anytime about the use of advanced permissions, you are encouraged to send an email to the audit subcommittee.  Mike V  •  Talk  19:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Without the diffs? I hope you mean without the external links surely, and that is what I have done. I would appreciate being informed of the conclusion of the oversight discussion. WP:OUTING has a rather long list of information considered personal, none of which I linked to: "legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information". If it is intended to include "any alternate accounts on any other web site", it would be good if that were added, as that is rather more common than many of the other entries, don't you agree? --GRuban (talk) 19:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I meant links. :) Sorry, it's been a long day! I'm not party to the discussion on the oversight list, though I'm interested in seeing the conclusion as well. Mike V  •  Talk  21:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Respect of my gender
Hello, at one of the WP:ANI pages you commented and used male pronouns to describe me or subsequently used a comment like, 'Pretending to be something they're not'. I would like to note that I am a woman and referring to me by male pronouns by mistake, and fixing it later is perfectly fine, however given the context of the situation, I don't approve of it happening when I've made it clear several times that I am a woman. ArbCom especially has already set a precedent on this in the Manning case, where editors should respect other editor's gender identities, gender, backgrounds, and the like. I would like to be respected so I am going to ask that you edit your comment to use female pronouns. Thank you. Tutelary (talk) 15:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure this is a direct quote from you on hackforums. "Also, Ewhoring. Change the extension to a .scr (Uncheck Hide Known Extensions from Folder Options) and change the icon to an image. Start pretending to be a girl in sex chats and when they ask you for a pic, you link them to that. Omegle. Same with Ewhoring, pretend to be a girl and when they ask for a pic, send them a link to your crypted RAT. ... I assisted you on my Skype I used to Ewhore on. I still spread that way. It has been successful for me. For all future clarification, I'm a guy." The Skype in question uses the name - Danielle, as you posted here, plus last name that you used in filing a bug report - you claim to have here. --GRuban (talk) 18:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Followup
Following up on the RSN, input would be appreciated on the talk page Talk:Rafah_massacre. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 00:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

RM notification
Since you have participated in at least one Requested Move or Move Review discussion, either as participant or closer, regarding the title of the article currently at Sarah Jane Brown, you are being notified that there is another discussion about that going on now, at Talk:Sarah Jane Brown. We hope we can finally achieve consensus among all participating about which title best meets policy and guidelines, and is not too objectionable. --В²C ☎ 17:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Robin Abrahams, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page WGBH. 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) 11:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Bobby Cummines


The article Bobby Cummines has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Disputed claim of importance

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 23:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Righted, guvnor, I'm sure. --GRuban (talk) 14:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Keep up your sensible work in areas of mutual interest!

Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC) 

No biggie, but ...
Regarding this, I didn't tell anyone to do anything in the thread that you linked. I merely suggested that it wasn't productive to continue at that time. Like everyone else there, I have no power to instruct people regarding what they do; unlike some, I chose not to hat and/or quickly archive it as means of keeping on top of things. I think hatting etc really is a last resort because it does give the impression of control/authority.

What you said in your reply to Smallbones is no big deal until someone raises it somewhere a few months down the line in evidence and the context is skewed because they do not follow your link. I can live with it now but, sorry, you've misunderstood. I've actually intervened on a few occasions to calm things down there and, IIRC, on that occasion it was intended primarily to get Eric to shut up because it was pretty obvious where things might have gone soon after. I hope this makes sense: I'm not the evil bigot etc that I'm sometimes made out to be, although you and everyone else are entitled to whatever opinions of me you think are appropriate. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 00:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry for worrying you, it was not intentional, but even rereading what I wrote, I simply can not see the words "Sitush is an evil bigot" either stated or implied. Yes, you did tell us to stop the argument, but I can't imagine that being used "in evidence" of anything heinous. ("The nerve of that man - stopping an argument! Burn him at the stake!") Er ... is "man" correct? If not, please pardon; I seem to recall someone somewhere writing you were female, but "He" seems to have been used at the RFAR... For what it's worth, I quite respect the FA stars and GA plusses on your user page, and have not read much about your issues with Carol; though I was fond of Carol, and realize you and she had a number of serious clashes, I don't think you and I have had any real issues. --GRuban (talk) 02:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)