User talk:Herostratus/Archive 5

Talkback
I was wondering if you could help me post my first article. The article I was wanting to write about is in regards to a group of lobbyists that focus on state regulated credit unions.

I have two questions:

One, How to I add a page that already exists? The page exists because these two subjects share the same name.

Two, I tried a sample page with my company, but I received an A7 error and it was deleted. What completely satisfies the definition to "indiciate the importance of a subject"?

Thanks Ferg8209 (talk) 19:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

here Pass a Method   talk  08:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The Hidden Wiki
Hello Herostratus. You investigated a bit in this area, and I believe you might be interested in commenting at Articles for deletion/The Hidden Wiki. Best. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Help
Herostratus, will you take a look at the edits I reverted at the Physical attractiveness and Blond articles? I reverted because the references that are used are bad, even very bad (such as softpedia), non-scholarly references. Not to mention, the user removed a scholarly-sourced line in the Physical attractiveness article. But then I was reverted by an administrator, all because I was stalking Pass a Method again. I understand blocking me for being a previously blocked IP proxy/stalker, but I don't understand reverting sound edits. Are all administrators like this after blocking an IP, out to revert anything the IP may have edited, no matter how right the edits may have been? What if I had been reverting outright vandalism? I would go ahead and revert the user again, but that administrator is likely watching those articles and will revert me on principle.

Thanks for saying that you are going to revert any bare url additions made by Pass a Method. He's still making them, though. I've come to accept the fact that he's either lazy or hasn't a clue about how to properly format references. Very likely both, or else he would taken the time to learn how to do it by now if he doesn't know how to. And that "lede" edit summary he so often provides irks me to no end. The least he could do is provide a proper edit summary if he isn't going to provide proper reference formats. Some other articles I am wary of him editing, ones you might want to watch if you aren't already, are Incest, Indecent exposure, Marriage, Sexual intercourse, Virginity, anything to do with children/teens and puberty (you already know that I can't stand him editing child sexual abuse and pedophilia topics) and men and women and their bodies. I would include the Abortion article, but there are enough editors watching it who are more than willing to revert any bad edits he may make on it. 194.170.28.239 (talk) 14:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * (I'm responding here because I'm not sure that your IP address is static (I recommend getting an account, it's easy free and safe).) Well, I dunno. I can't really follow this user around as that would be stalking. Some of his edits are OK but he is kind of peculiar, generally. As long as he stays away from articles dealing with child sex and sexuality, which he has, he's not really a big concern to me personally. Other than that not really sure what to say or do about him. Herostratus (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So, by the "sexuality" part of your comment, you mean only child sexuality? You must, because Pass a Method has still been tampering with other types of sexual topics. Seriously, it's a problem that this user edits any type of sexual topics. I saw that you put two of his articles for deletion. Good call on those.


 * Oh, and I don't hold it against you that you ignored my concerns about the Physical attractiveness and Blond articles. Another user took care of the first one, and I alerted him/her to the second one. 23.20.58.44 (talk) 21:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Alexei_Davidov.JPG)
Thanks for uploading File:Alexei_Davidov.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 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. Melesse (talk) 02:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Juice Leskinen at Rind et al. controversy
This user is way more of a worry than User:Radvo is. At least Radvo recognizes the great harm that often results from child sexual abuse, while Leskinen acts as though harm generally does not result from it. See Talk:Rind et al. controversy. This user (Leskinen) is a mess. I hope you and others do your best to keep this article and the other child sexual abuse/pedophilia articles from being ran over by that sickening view.

Pass a Method got the article and talk page semi-protected so that I can't edit or comment there. But I bet he was hoping for a permanent lock-down. Instead, it's only temporary. I'm not sure why he thinks he can silence my voice for long or that he can get an article I may edit semi-protected, along with its talk page, simply because I'm the the one editing it or commenting, but he's sorely mistaken. Someone might want to tell User:DeltaQuad that too. 115.124.88.2 (talk) 16:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (I'm responding here because I'm not sure that your IP address is static (I recommend getting an account, it's easy free and safe).) I hear you. I'm monitoring the article. We'll work it out eventually I suppose. Herostratus (talk) 16:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Leskinen has taken my dare and has now moved on to the Child sexual abuse article, saying that it needs to be checked for being non-neutral. In just what way are we supposed to be neutral on the topic of child sexual abuse? By suggesting throughout the article that child sexual abuse has a healthy chance of not being harmful? Leskinen sounds just like the other suspicious users who have showed up at that article claiming POV issues. One of them was recently blocked. I hope the same happens to Leskinen. On the Rind talk page, he says he'll be leaving soon. I hope he means permanently. I'm calling this user a "he" because they are always "hes." 23.20.58.44 (talk) 21:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes OK, but what is your deal? How can you have addresses in those ranges unless you're using a proxy or something??? I'm not inclined to converse with you much in that circumstance, can you not register an account? Herostratus (talk) 03:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

They/he (it's probably the same guy who has since been banned for an army of sockpuppets) were trying to get you to act as a useful idiot for the insidious pro-paedophilia movement on Wikipedia, gaming the system by abusing your good faith, "Juice Leskinen" was banned as a sockpuppet of "Cataconia" and kept/keeps coming back on numerous IPs, see here: Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Cataconia -- Mistress Selina Kyle  ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉ )  04:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What "they", Lskinen et all or user 23.20.58.44 et al? Anyway there is no insidious pro-paedophilia movement on Wikipedia, is there? I thought all that was in abeyance. Herostratus (talk) 23:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Mistress Selina, I'm highly insulted that you would accuse me of being Juice Leskinen. Why the hell would I rat myself out?! Or debate with myself on the talk page, calling myself a likely pedophile?! If I was Juice, how does that help my cause at all? I have been someone who has been worried about pro-pedophilia pushing on Wikipedia, which Herostratus can attest to. And, Herostratus, I'd thought you'd known for some time now that I am always a proxy. It's the only reason I keep getting blocked, aside from stalking Pass a Method's awful edits. 23.20.67.42 (talk) 05:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, I think that Mistress Selina is confused, or something. OK, 23.20.67.42, right, I figured something like that. I agree with the thrust of what you say, but I don't understand why you need to edit via a proxy. Why not come in from in the cold and get a proper account? As it is, I'm pretty much not too comfortable with engaging with you, since proxy editing is against the rules, and there's no reason why a good-faith editor can't edit withing the rules, I don't think. Herostratus (talk) 05:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Even good-faith editors edit use proxies, per WP:PROXY and per my contributions. My only offense has been using a proxy and WP:Stalking Pass a Method, although I don't consider following his edits and trying to fix the bad ones to be an offense/WP:Stalking. WP defines it as "with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor." That's not why I'm following him. Anyway, I don't want my true IP to be shown, and it's not because I'm not trustworthy. As for getting an account, I have heard how Wikipedia can become addictive, even an obsession, once you become one of its official members, and I don't want that happening to me. I also like to be able to bounce around as a different IP. Besides, Pass a Method would likely try to get me blocked for WP:Block evasion, even though I'm no vandal, have never had a Wikipedia account, and should be able to have on as sort of a WP:Fresh start. 23.20.83.143 (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikimania
Hero, are you going to Wikimania? Was hoping you might be interested in being a panelist on paid editing representing the paid advocacy watch. See the submission here. You may have already seen this on the Paid Advocacy Watch Talk page. King4057 (talk) 08:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * On a related note, are you going to keep some form of the Paid Advocacy Watch alive? As someone who has - and continues to - invest a lot of time learning, implementing and sharing ethical best practices, how to collaborate with other editors, rules and guidelines and so forth, I feel bitter at the prospect of unethical editing being more effective. King4057 (talk) 09:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 09:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

"Substantive change"
Can you please point me to where the addition of the word "online" to WP:NOT was discussed? It was not there originally, it was a later (though admittedly still old) addition that I'm simply undoing because it was used as an excuse to go change the five pillars and a bunch of other stuff recently. --Gmaxwell (talk) 08:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well these are valid points and you may be right. My stance is more or less that it's not worth making the change because it doesn't really improve the sentence, but I could be wrong on that and I've opened the question on the talk page. Herostratus (talk) 03:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Teenage Dream: The Complete Confection
Katy Perry is re-releasing her 2010 studio album Teenage Dream. It's called Teenage Dream: The Complete Confection. I want to make a article about this studio album. I already have a article I am going to move to Teenage Dream: The Complete Confection. It is called User: CPGirlAJ/Teenage Dream: The Complete Confection. I tried to move the article but it won't let me do it. Could you figure out how to move this article? Please answer this question at my talk page. CPGirlAJ (talk) 23:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A re-release does not typically require a new article, even with a slightly new title ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 11:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)\
 * You're probably right (although I don't know the specifics of this particular album), and I advised CPGirlAJ that she'd probably be better of editing the relevant section of the existing article, although she's free to make and argue in defense of a separate article if she wants to. Herostratus (talk) 15:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:PAIDWATCH
Hi, I made a bunch of edits to WP:PAIDWATCH stuff, I was thinking, when you made it you weren't sure if there was going to be interest it says, but given that people have started joining and recent events like User_talk:Philippe_(WMF) + I think it really seems like it's time for it to go into full throttle maybe?

It's your idea, but if you don't I think I'm going to make one myself lol. It's more likely to get more people joining if it's up as a proper project than looking like it's someone's userpage I think. You should totally be listed as the original idea for it though, that should have been done years ago. It really is about time I think, it looks like the Sockpuppet_investigations/Websense,_Inc. stuff has been going on since around 2006 after I gave up on Wikipedia for a while -.-

 Wikipedians also recommend biscuits with tea.

 Mistress Selina Kyle  ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉ )  has given you a cup of tea. Tea promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day ever so slightly better.

Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a tea, especially if it is someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!

Spread the lovely, warm, refreshing goodness of tea by adding {{subst:wikitea}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

-- Mistress Selina Kyle  ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉ )  10:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Barbara Newhall Follet.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Barbara Newhall Follet.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

This needs to be answered
Do you agree with this edit summary by Mistress Selina Kyle? If so, i'm afraid that Wikiproject Cooperation is going to have to break all ties with your group. Silver seren C 23:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Being supportive of the Corporate Representatives Group is not a requirement for being open to supporting genuine ethical paid editors that do not seek to lobby to enforce their will n Wikipedia to work within the wp:Conflict of Interest rules — or it shouldn't be, if wp:COOP would stay within the original stated aims before some seem to be trying to hijack it into Corporate Representatives Group on Wikipedia... You have no authority to threaten people with "breaking off", you cannot "own" wikiprojects and the fact that you seem to be seeking to exclude people who want to encourage Corporate Representatives to work within Wikipedia's policies is showing that if anyone should be "broken off" from wp:COOP it is you and bobrayner who have been actively supporting the lobbyists on Facebook and attacking people like me attempting to encourage them to act within the rules like wp:COOP is MEANT to be about. If you were not like this wp:PAIDWATCH would not even need to exist... -- Mistress Selina Kyle  ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉ )  23:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * CREWE is the main group we are working with right now, the one that all the ethical paid editors are joining. I don't know where you got your opinions on them from, but all of the paid editors that have contacted us have been a member of that group. And it has nothing to do with "authority". If Herostratus' group is going to specifically focus on working against paid editors that are trying to ethically edit Wikipedia, that goes at direct odds with what Wikiproject Cooperation is meant to be focused on. Furthermore, I haven't excluded anyone, you've just been going around to a number of places and making comments that are attacking CREWE and its members. As for as I can tell, you've been doing this for no discernible reason. Silver  seren C 23:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, to add, they have been acting within the rules. Completely and utterly. They are more focused on getting other PR people and companies to understand that what Bell Pottinger did is wrong and shouldn't be repeated. Silver  seren C 23:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what this Paid Watch project would accomplish. Banning or heavily restricting paid editing isn't feasible. It will just drive it underground, which is something nobody wants. From my time working with my fellow reviewers at WikiProject Articles for Creation, I have dealt with more paid editors than I can count. The vast majority of them try very hard to write Wikipedia articles that follow our policies and guidelines. It is just a matter of explaining to them why something should be or can't be done.


 * The current AfC system works magnificently. The user writes an article, and a member of the project reviews the article. It is moved to mainspace if it is acceptable, and "declined" with a reason if it isn't. We have an IRC channel and a newly added help desk to answer queries. Often times reviewers are also asked questions on their talk pages. AFC has had some very high quality articles come out of the process. While I agree that some paid editing can be harmful, if the PR organization is genuinely willing to follow policy (and most are), it does not cause any harm. For mainspace, we have COI edit requests, and for new content we have Articles for Creation. Alpha_Quadrant   (talk)  02:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Well Silverseren to answer your question, I wouldn't have made that edit and wouldn't state things that way, no. On the other hand, the phrase "Widely regarded as a pressure/PR group" is, I guess, wrong only being somewhat weasel-worded; "Is a pressure/PR group" would be better. I'm not sure if "PR" is actually accurate or necessary, but since they are PR people I don't see as they or anyone would much object to being characterized as a "PR group", so I suppose that you're objecting to "pressure group". But they are. Right? I mean, I hope that CREWE is a pressure group because if they're not, what on earth is the rationale for their existence? To play golf? To operate soup kitchens for the homeless? What on earth could they be except a pressure group???

There's nothing inherently wrong with being a pressure group, of course. It's simply a description. I have belonged to various pressure groups (Greenpeace, ACLU, etc.) and feel that that's fine. It's a question of to what end the pressure is being applied. If it's an end that feels is laudable, one will presumably support the pressure group; if not, then not, that's all. Herostratus (talk) 05:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's what CREWE is about (from their FAQ): "Initially a group of PR professionals and marketers who wanted to get together to change the existing status quo with Wikipedia over editing with a conflict of interest... Once a few Wikipedians joined the group, the forum has evolved to one of education about how to ethically edit when you have a conflict of interest, and continue the discussion about improving usability on Wikipedia for editors with COI." By "usability", CREWE means improving the editing interface so that novice editors can more easily access policies regarding MoS, COI, RS, V, NOT, etc. Rklawton (talk) 03:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, OK, that sounds fine. You'll excuse me I hope if I don't necessarily take their (or any entity's) self-description at face value. Perhaps I'm overly cynical, but on the other hand my Sham-WOW bill is quite low. But to the extent that CREWE has come around to abandoning toxic advocacy and come around to being Wikipedia-firsters, this is great news! One thing I was thinking about is this: it seems to me that a lot of our articles on corporations are really lax in outlining their larger impact on society, specifically in insufficient attention to corporate malfeasance. I think it'd be outstanding if CREWE members who have insight into particular corporations -- perhaps as their clients, for instance -- would be willing to help out by expanding our material on corporate malfeasance for those articles. This'd go a long way to proving their bona-fides as Wikipedians first and foremost, so this looks like a win-win. Any ideas on how we can get the ball rolling on this? Herostratus (talk) 06:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Paid advocates
I have recently been working on a creating a similar project looking at paid political operatives. I'm sure you would agree there is a correlary....payment. Hidden or not hidden it effects the result. It effects Wikipedia. For the time being I will keep my edits and opinions to a minimum. I don't want to bring my baggage here and diminish your effort. What I hope I can do is to keep threads "on topic'. While there may be a miracle answer at the end of a drift away from the opening of a thread, that is a rare occasion. I'll start reading and catch up. ```Buster Seven   Talk  08:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * With your permission, I would like to include the following entry from 'paid advocates' and include it at WP:Paid Operatives. Right now I am just a gatherer, a harvester. I hope to emulate the work you have done at User talk:Herostratus/Wikiproject Paid Advocacy Watch. The level of conversation far, far (not a typo) surpasses anything at Paid Operatives. Great work! I would not include your sig since I feel that "colors' the RL response. ```Buster Seven   Talk  06:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyway, it's a complicated issue. My opinion is that overall paid advocacy editing is a net negative, for a lot of reasons. One of them is the effect on our reputation. Another is the effect on morale. A third is corruption of our processes. But mainly, no, I don't believe that entities "merely want a neutral Wikipedia article". Because, you know, one man's neutral is another man's whitewashing, and putting money on the table just makes this impossible to fairly determine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buster7 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Heads up. Someone is notifying about your list. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  02:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm your new clerk. :) &rarr;  Stani Stani  05:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, well, sorry I've gotten a little behind, but to address the above:
 * @User: Buster7: Well, thank you for you kind words. Yes of course you have my persmission to re-post anything I write -- it's part of the release agreement anyway, but it's kind (but not necessary in future!) to ask for permission.
 * @[[User:Berean Hunter, OK, thanks for the heads-up. I'm pretty sure all those users already know about (and don't object to) their listing.
 * @User:Stanistani Well, great! Welcome, and thanks for your help! Herostratus (talk) 05:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

New WikiProject: Privacy & Personal Attack Protection
Hi Herostratus, I wonder if you are interested in joining the Privacy & Personal Attack Protection WikiProject? Paolo Napolitano  19:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi PaoloNapolitano. Sorry, I've gotten shamefully behind on my correspondence recently. It sounds interesting, but you've deleted it, so I didn't get a chance to look at it. I'm sorry if this was due to lack of response, especially to the extent that my own slowness in responding contributed to that. I'd be glsd to discuss this with you in more detail. Herostratus (talk) 05:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Age of consent and its spin-off articles
Shouldn't all of these articles be semi-protected, not just Ages of consent in North America, or do you guys have them all under control? 221.194.177.162 (talk) 16:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I dunno. Is there a specific problem? I don't have them under control -- I'm supposed to be basically retired from that field, and while I have a couple of articles (Age of consent reform for instance) presently on my watchlist, I reserve the right to remove them at any time. If you want permanent semi-protection for any articles, I guess Requests for page protection is the place to go. Herostratus (talk) 03:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:PAW
I like that....PAW...so does my French Bulldog, JoeJo. Anyways, you said "...Figuring out how to do that is one of the tasks of this project, I guess. I'm willing to engage with you and other paid editors, but I'm not that interested in arguing with you. I'm not going to persuade you to give up your meal ticket. I'm mainly interested in seeing paid editing ended, and unless and until that is done, watching it and fixing it . It's tedious work but it has to be done, I guess. Herostratus (talk) 05:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC) Don't hesitate to ask for assistance in watching and fixing. ```Buster Seven   Talk  14:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

New Page Triage engagement strategy released
Hey guys!

I'm dropping you a note because you filled out the New Page Patrol survey, and indicated you'd be interested in being contacted about follow-up work. This is to notify you that we've finally released both the initial documentation about the project and also the engagement strategy, which sets out how we plan to work with the community on this. Please give both a read, and leave any comments or suggestions you have on the talkpage, on my talkpage, or in my inbox -.

It's awesome to finally get to start work on this! :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 02:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Heads up, Pass a Method in disguise
Herostratus, take note that Pass a Method may start to edit under a different account and that therefore any future conflict you have with a "new editor" over things you have combated against Pass a Method in the past may, in fact, be Pass a Method. See here. If it comes to that point, I'm sure that you already know you will have the right to report him for inappropriate use of WP:Fresh start. 222.45.72.124 (talk) 23:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Opinion about an editor and articles they are editing?
Hey, Herostratus. I see that you were reverted by Avalongod at Adolescent sexuality in the United States. Perhaps you wouldn't mind telling me what you think of the issues expressed at User talk:Avalongod? 122.72.0.113 (talk) 08:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Herostratus. I am the other editor in question.  122 disagreed with some edits I have made, which is fine.  Actually he disagreed with the edits a different editor had made (with IP address 84 something) and accused me of being this person.  I assured him I was not.  But he doesn't like some of my edits either, which is still fine.  We have argued back and forth a few times and in my last post to him (on his talk page and the social effects of pornography page) I suggested that we both calm down and work together, even where we have different views as to what information is most important, toward consensus and compromise.  I do not claim all of my edits are perfect and where disagreement exists, seek to find compromise or consensus with other editors.  At this point I am finding 122's continued comments toward me to be harrassing, particularly as they are accusatory and hostile, rather than trying to discuss our differences.  In the last few days he has not been involved in editing anything other than complaints about me.  I see no further value in replying to him.  I don't know why he has become so focused on me, other than our disagreements on a controversial topic.  Avalongod (talk) 14:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * See here, my previous talk page or the Social effects of pornography talk page for what was actually said since Avalongod removed the discussion from his talk page. Avalongod comes here to complain that my comments toward him are harrassment. I tried to tell him that expressing concerns about an editor's editing pattern is not harassment. This is what I told him: "You call it 'lashing out [at] people who disagree with [me],' when all I did was express a concern about the very clear slant of your edits in every media-effects related article. You are always pushing for a 'Negative effects? What negative effects? There couldn't possibly be any negative effects' angle. Excuse me for being concerned." After I expressed concern about Avalongod's editing, even asking if there is a WP:CIO factor, he started with a somewhat hostile tone. If his initial response hadn't been so fight-mode, then this discussion would have went over a lot easier. One of the things that aggravated me while talking with Avalongod is that he kept avoiding my accusation that he is IP 61. and seemed to even be implying that he is not (for example, pointing out the Adolescence article as the other article I must be referring to regarding his edits). I told him that he may not be IP address 84, but he is the other two I highlighted. His being the other two makes the whole issue with 84 very suspicious. Just look at his style of contributing, the fact that the article is not high-traffic, and what 84 said. I don't care if Avalongod is 84. I care about him not pulling information just because he wants to and slanting or biasing articles. The reason that I responded to Avalongod in the same hostile manner after he suggested we calm down is because he'd had his last bitter say and I wanted mine. I wasn't just going to let him say those things about me and not counter them. What he said in that retort easily outweighed his suggestion that we play nice. 111.8.172.210 (talk) 17:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

COI RFC
Hi Hero. In your comment on the RFC: "It's corrupting to our processes for professionals to be involved in governance issues in which they have a financial stake."

Does that mean my comments are not welcome? I didn't mean to offend.

King4057 (talk) 21:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, for one thing, you're a special case. I haven't figured you out yet, but for instance IIRC you say turn down clients if they're not benign and so forth. I actually haven't seen any of your editing for clients, remind me, what is some of your work?


 * And for another thing, hmmmm, well, no, I mean, it's not a blanket prohibition, and besides that, what difference does it make what I think? There're plenty of folks who don't welcome my comments on various subjects, but I make them anyway.


 * But you know, you're a special case, because you're you, and unusual I think. But hard cases make bad law, so I continue to maintain that as a general rule persons who are here to earn a living should refrain from getting involved in governance decisions, yes.


 * For instance, I'm not too nuts about [Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Herostratus/Wikiproject Paid Editing Watch/Editor Registry this], because the nominator is (or desires to become) a professional online "reputation management" person I gather. Did she nominate this page for deletion (a governance initiative, I would say) because she is completely fair-minded and is only thinking of what is best for the Wikipedia? Or because it represents a possible obstacle to her optimizing her income from either current or potential clients here?


 * Well, who knows? There's no way to know, and of course she may not know herself (we humans are good at fooling ourselves regarding our own motivations, sometimes). But it doesn't look good and it doesn't feel right.


 * Well, all rules are blunt instruments. If I was king of Wikipedia, yes, I would likely prohibit people who earn money advocating for clients here from being involved in governance discussions. It might well be that in your case this would silence a useful and good voice. However, we can't really have rules such as "If you're involved in such-and-such and you're a disingenuous slimeball then you can't participate, otherwise you can". There're a lot of laws where actions are forbidden even though some minority set of particular instances of those actions are beneficial to society, because the aggregate of instances are not beneficial. That is life I suppose.


 * But anyway I have no power or say in this matter, so I wouldn't worry about it. Cheers, Herostratus (talk) 04:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Claims that my COI influence my perspective on governance would be well-placed, but I also have real-world experiences that give me some unique perspective. For example, after 6+ years as a PR agency pro, I don't have the same faith in ethics or professionalism that an outsider soaking up the PRSA's code of ethics might. I do have faith that they will do what it takes to get results. I also know from experience that it takes some very difficult consulting to extract encyclopedic entries from clients, that for example don't overtly overlook a major controversy. To expect your average "yes maam" PR agency to do the same isn't realistic. Finally, I know from experience that even good-intentioned PR pros will make poor edits. That's why the COI policy exists, because COIs make poor edits. Duh.


 * I'm investing a lot of time and effort to do the paid editing thing in a model that is sustainable, ethical and in everyone's best interest. I know from experience that this is a difficult thing to do, but it can be done. It's just that no one's been able to do it the right way yet. I would welcome other paid editors that make the same commitment to become a specialist and make a commitment to ethics. I even think there are certain things anyone can do without expertise that there should be more awareness for. However it's offensive to my efforts if covert censorship is more effective than what I'm doing. If the group of people responsible for this kind of editing is given broader direct editing rights, despite being unwilling to develop an expertise. If there is a stronger business case for covert, direct, or crappy editing than there is to invest the resources in doing it the right way.


 * Anyways, here are some of my latest projects. I would even welcome your constructive criticism. Note that I wrote my own controversy sections and requested review from neutral editors.  King4057 (talk) 04:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

MarkMonitor
 * Draft
 * Talk Page
 * Discussion with Danhash

Honeywell Aerospace
 * Draft
 * Talk page note
 * Note to Wikiproject Aviation
 * Talk page comments with links to drafts on NextGen and Avionics


 * I left a comment/suggestion on the misc/delete page. I felt the best way to handle my COI is to comment, but not vote. King4057 (talk) 05:16, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Alicia Gorey
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Alicia Gorey. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 10:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Mail
Flyer22 (talk) 20:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Hope.jpg


A tag has been placed on File:Hope.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.  Ron h jones  (Talk) 22:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion of Touré's surname in his article
Hi. Since the matter of whether to include Touré's surname has come up again, can you cast your vote here? If you're new to this matter, and not familiar with the arguments for and against doing so, you can read them just above that section, or click here. The discussion is of considerable length, but not too long to get a gist of the primary arguments for and against. I really appreciate it. Thanks. Nightscream Nightscream (talk) 16:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tokyo Two
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Tokyo Two. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 10:15, 8 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.

Mentoring

 * Hello since I'm not good at editing wikipedia could you do mentoring for me?--RJR3333 (talk) 01:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, sure. Herostratus (talk) 01:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Obviously at least one of the editors didn't like my edits to the article about To Catch a Predator but I think I'll stay from that article and the Chris Hansen one from now on, I'll still edit wikipedia in other areas though, and also if I do edit age of consent articles I'll probably only do it with regards to Europe not the USA from now on since the USA can tie in with the Hansen article. Other than my edits to those two articles do you see anything wrong with my recent edits? Also is my creation of an article about Cecil Woodham-Smith's book The Great Hunger: Ireland: 1845-1849 ok since the book is well known or is it a mistake like my creation of the other two book articles was, and I'd also like to ask that about my creation of the article about Father Ernetti's Chronovisor: The Creation and Disappearance of the World's First Time Machine? --RJR3333 (talk) 02:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll take a look at this tomorrow. Herostratus (talk) 03:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So are my edits ok or not?--RJR3333 (talk) 22:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've been 100% tied up and haven't been able to get onto Wikipedia recently. Sorry. As soon as I can I'll take a look if you want to wait; if not, maybe someone else could offer more timely help. Again, sorry for letting you down. Herostratus (talk) 18:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Is it possible that there could be an interaction ban between Flyer22 and me, because she is constantly attacking me personally and making up claims about my viewpoints that are not true and it provokes me and I think it would be in both our best interests if there was one? --RJR3333 (talk) 08:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, come off of it. See here for what RJR3333 considers "attacking." Yes, correcting bad edits is constantly attacking in RJR3333's view. Herostratus is someone who knows how I operate, and I highly doubt that he is going to agree with your point of view regarding how I have conducted myself. As long as you edit articles that I edit, the only way not to interact with you is to have someone play intermediate. Either that, or, as you have claimed to do more than once now, you stop editing three of the same articles that I do. We only encounter each other aggressively on three articles, despite you showing up to several articles that I edit. Three articles you continue to state you will never edit again, but continue to show up to. Flyer22 (talk) 08:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You accused me of making death threats on you which is not true. I only said I hated you and I already apologized for it. --RJR3333 (talk) 08:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I answered here. And wishing that I was dead is not the same as making a death threat. More than anything, you need to cease and desist from speaking of me to any other Wikipedia editor, unless I have violated some policy or guideline in a way that it deserves the attention of outside editors. You don't want interaction with me? It's simple. Don't make crappy edits to any of the articles we both edit, especially the Pedophilia article, and keep my name off of other people's talk pages unless most definitely warranted. Even vaguely mentioning me, as you have done elsewhere, does not suffice. Stop focusing on me! I never think about or focus on you until you screw up. So you would do well to stop obsessing over me, on and off Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 09:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not stalking you or trying to date you. You have accused me of something and produced zero evidence to support your accusation. If it was under an ip how do you even know it was me? --RJR3333 (talk) 09:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not true that I already knew about that edit, Flyer22 made that up. I honestly just searched through her talk page archive to see if I had wished she were dead and did not remember. It is not true that I had searched her history so extensively that I already knew about that edit. And I have no obsession with her. And she constantly criticizes me on my talk page in the past. Since she has banned from posting on hers I think its fair to say she cannot post on mine. --RJR3333 (talk) 09:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, on second thought given how much Flyer hates me its to dangerous to continue editing I probably should stop. --RJR3333 (talk) 09:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you want me to prove right here, for everyone to see, just how obsessed you've been with me, on and off Wikipedia? I don't have to direct you or anyone else to your statement if I don't want to. And I know your IP ranges by now, as well as your type of editing. And for the love of all that is sacred, can you never learn when to stop?! You at least showed some resistance in this edit. But now... You can't get the last word on my talk page, so you constantly try to get the last word on others' talk pages. That is the very definition of obsession -- constantly trying to keep me in debate with you. You state that you "honestly just searched through [my] talk page archive" and found this. You expect me to believe that you found that very quickly by way of one of my several, discussion-filled archives? Well, I don't. And there you go again with your "how much Flyer hates me" claim. No, no, no, it's the other way around, and all because I correct your damn mistakes. You are immature, and often fail to digest things properly, which makes me wonder about your age and your WP:COMPETENCY. But whatever. Just remember what I've stated on all this, and try to remember it accurately. Flyer22 (talk) 10:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm definitely being honest that today was the first time I looked up that quote on your talk page. And I was not responsible for this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:To_Catch_a_Predator&diff=499976055&oldid=499975309 edit. I'm also being honest about that. --RJR3333 (talk) 10:51, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have an obsession with you... I don't even know who you are as a person. I'm not intending to be hear anymore after what you've said seriously. Just show where I said I wanted you to die you are the one who accused me of it. If you do not provide proof of your accusation, I will report!!!!--RJR3333 (talk) 10:56, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Herostratus I'm definitely being honest, the edit she just provided the link to IS NOT ONE I MADE. --RJR3333 (talk) 11:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Any chance of me believing you went out the window with you denying that the IP in that diff from the To Catch a Predator talk page is you. Yes, it is you! That is one of your IP ranges, the same type of range that has shown itself to be yours, such as in this edit, and the IP is continuing on your debate. So that is a definite lie on your part. Have you never heard of WP:CheckUser? A CheckUser, while typically not publicly exposing an editor's IP, will do so for good reason. And there is a good reason in this case. Do not insult my intelligence again. Yes, you are indeed obsessed with me, and I have the diffs, and off-Wikipedia activity, to prove it. You do not have to know me personally to be obsessed with me. Ever hear of WP:WIKIHOUNDING? And go ahead and report and see how successful you'll be with that, as if I'll actually get in trouble for stating that you wished I would die. Given the evidence I have against you over these past two years, including how you've acted today by constantly posting on my talk page against my wishes, the person who gets in trouble will not be me. Flyer22 (talk) 11:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I looked over that ip's user history and the ip added on the Louis Conradt Jr. case to the article. I don't know anything about the Conradt case other than he tried to have sex with a person under 17 and killed himself. I couldn't possibly have written that part of the article. I am reporting you for this, that's it. --RJR3333 (talk) 11:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * IPs can be inadvertently shared; it states that at the bottom of IP talk pages here at Wikipedia. No matter you not making the edits to whatever other article the IP did (as if anyone should believe you), you made both of those edits on the To Catch a Predator talk page that I linked to. And you have nothing valid to report, so go right ahead. Flyer22 (talk) 12:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't remember making those edits I've been trying really hard and I don't. And it doesn't look like my writing style to me, "defining the premise of". Maybe my memory is faulty but I don't remember it. How do you know so certainly I made the edit. I'm telling the truth I don't believe I made it. --RJR3333 (talk) 12:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? I am not talking about the edits to any other article. I am talking about your edits to the To Catch a Predator talk page. The IP who was steadily trying to remove your "I hate Flyer22" comment is most definitely you! That's when you first exposed your IP range to me. All of your IP ranges, except for any others you may have, begin with 99. I have witnessed your IP range editing the same topics as you, and at my talk page, and you have admitted that you have edited Wikipedia as an IP. That IP continuing on your debate about mentioning 17-18 in the lead is most definitely you! Stop wasting my time denying that it's you, stop insulting my intelligence by denying that it's you, and stop making yourself look silly by denying that it's you! In addition to it being obvious that it's you, as if an IP showed up to repeatedly remove your comment about hating me or to continue on your debate, CheckUser can easily confirm that it's you. I already explained about the IP making edits to articles you may not have edited, but, whether it was someone else who edited those other articles or not, it was you who edited that To Catch a Predator talk page as those IPs. Flyer22 (talk) 12:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I honestly do not remember, BUT I was in Indiana when I removed the I hate flyer comment and when the edit you claim I made was made I was in Wisconin. Wouldn't the ip change numbers between states. Also I changed which computer I used between those two dates because one of them broke. So it doesn't seem likely to me.
 * Anyway, that isn't really relevant, what is relevant is that you have not provided evidence that I said I wanted you to die. Just produce it already. I think it would be a bad idea for me to continue editing anyway. --RJR3333 (talk) 13:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well if I did say it I apoplogize. I realize that I am a bad person and that I went to far in criticizing you. I should never have done that. It was probably a mistake for me to ever edit wikipedia. I should have realized it was going to backfire on me. I honestly do not remember saying this but perhaps I did. And I was telling the truth when I said I had first found that quote about you should die today. I also noticed you said in one of your edits that I seem obsessed with you and said "like a lot of male users". I apologize if I gave that impression. --RJR3333 (talk) 13:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Both IPs are you, per my comments above. There's no room for "doesn't seem likely." It's not a coincidence that both IPs start with 99 and made edits that supported you (removing your comment/continuing your debate), just as it is not a coincidence when such IP ranges edit the To Catch a Predator article or any of the Wikipedia age of consent articles, or when you made a comment as this IP range on my talk page. I don't even have to provide a diff for that either, since you've obviously looked over that time period in my talk page edit history. Even if I did, you would likely only deny it, just as you have denied two of the most obvious WP:DUCK edits in the history of Wikipedia. You talk about bad ideas. What is a bad idea is that you are still debating this and demanding that I show you proof for a comment you made. You'd deny it anyway. Like I stated, stop wasting my time. I don't want to read another thing from you. You can keep on denying and demanding; it won't make a bit of difference with regard to you being believed/getting your way. I don't care for your apology. Just leave me alone until there has to be interaction between us. And about the obsessed bit, I stated "like a lot of other males." Not "male users." It was in reference to what I've faced outside of Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 13:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've striked out all my comments I believe Herostratus. And I know your certainly going to believe her, not me and I do not care anymore. Now that I thought about it I believe editing wikipedia is to dangerous to continue...because this could wind up giving me legal harassment issues. I would just like this conversation deleted by mutual agreement if possible, and in return I would accept a ban from the wikipedia website. --RJR3333 (talk) 22:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * See No legal threats. There are no "legal harassment issues" that you would be facing, seeing as I would not be pressing any legal charges against you for anything. Flyer22 (talk) 23:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, considering that this is Herostratus's talk page, I think it is unacceptable to be having this stupid/immature "debate" here. So I think it should be deleted by mutual agreement.--RJR3333 (talk) 02:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This talk page is not an appropriate place for this debate, it should be deleted. --RJR3333 (talk) 04:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Neither is the Pedophilia talk page. But you took it there anyway. Per WP:TALK, it's up to Herostratus to delete this discussion. And considering that he, just like me, likes to keep record of his discussions through archive, I doubt he will delete it without archiving. Flyer22 (talk) 04:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Herostratus, if you have it in you, will you weigh in at Talk:To Catch a Predator? I'm about > < this close to requesting a topic a ban on RJR3333, in relation to all pedophilia/child sexual abuse/age of consent articles. I certainly have enough evidence against him to be successful in getting it. But whether or not I request a topic ban, I will be reporting him because of that latest WP:Consensus-violating edit of his...if it is not reverted. As I stated on the article talk page, he has no respect for the talk page environment/WP:Consensus...and that needs to change. Flyer22 (talk) 09:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What evidence do you have to get me a ban from the entire topic?--RJR3333 (talk) 15:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If you seriously don't know, after being told by several editors, then keep up your disruptive editing and find out. Jokestsress (suitable name, really) and her "guidance"/lies against me won't be able to save you. Flyer22 (talk) 16:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok why can't we just work out a compromise instead of you topic banning me. I don't have the bias you claim I have. My bias is the opposite, I think the age of consent, marriage age, age of majority, employment age, etc. except for voting should be 15 or 16, not 18. So right off the bat the bias you are accusing me of is false. Off2riorob criticized me for showing that very bias. So if you're topic banning me for having a bias in favor of 18 then it won't work. --RJR3333 (talk) 17:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There's not only one thing to report about your edits. I'm tired of interacting with you and compromising with you; you always break our compromises. I'm not looking to ask for a topic ban on you unless the type of disruptive editing you have repeatedly engaged in continues. Even if the behavior continues, I'm not sure that I'd request a topic ban when reporting you. I stated before that you need some serious mentoring. Your edits are generally well-meaning, but WP:COMPETENCE is required. I'm not certain why it is you don't take things to the talk page before making edits on contentious topics that are likely to be contested, as you have been advised to do more than once now. I'm not certain why you often ignore policies or guidelines such as WP:CONSENSUS or WP:TALK. But there are clearly things that need to be fixed in your behavior so that you are more productive around here. Flyer22 (talk) 21:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You say that you are tired of interacting with me, but no one is forcing you to. In any case this discussion is inapropriate to the setting of Herostratus's talk page, but I don't know how else to respond since you banned me from your talk page. I feel the best way to resolve this is to ask other editors if they agree with you that I should be topic banned, and let them decide, instead of aimlessly continuing this time wasting argument, so I've posted on other editors pages asking if they agree with your proposal. --RJR3333 (talk) 23:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been clear that when you screw up on articles that I also edit, I am forced to interact with you. I'm certainly not going to let your errors stay or your disruptive behavior go unreported when it needs reporting. And this is what I'm talking about when I state that you do not follow Wikipedia's guideline or policies and your constant need to edit war. If you do something like that again, I will report you. Enough said. And, finally, asking others if they agree with "my proposal" to topic ban you shows what I mean about your inability to digest things properly. I did not make a proposal, and I stated "I'm not sure that I'd request a topic ban when reporting you." Posting to others' talk pages about this is not how consensus for a topic ban is formed and it achieves the opposite of your supposed goal of not "aimlessly continuing this time wasting argument." Have a ball at the other editors' talk pages, mentioning me yet again after I advised you to keep my name off of others' talk pages if you were not going to relay information accurately. What the hell ever. Flyer22 (talk) 01:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And yet you did it again before I even posted my most recent reply above. Unbelievable. Let's see if you try to remove it from the archive, which is a definite no-no. Go ahead and see what happens. Flyer22 (talk) 01:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * STOP IT!!!! This is not your talk page, so it is inapropriate for you to continue attacking me here. If you must do so, do it on my talk page. --RJR3333 (talk) 01:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's ironic that you are telling me that when you are the one who brought this crap to Herostatus's talk page and now to others' talk pages and WikiProject talk pages. And yet you claim you aren't obsessed. You call it an attack; I call it needed criticism. You barely know what you are doing while on this site, and it shows. So mess with the archived discussion and see what happens. I'm waiting. Flyer22 (talk) 01:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And look at this. Wrong on all accounts. Old and resolved discussions can be archived at any time. And archiving is better than you repeatedly violating WP:TALK by removing your comment after I've responded to it. Just ridiculous. Flyer22 (talk) 02:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As soon as I get through doing what I need to do, I will be reporting how you continuously violated WP:TALK by removing the comment, how you objected to me legitimately archiving it by archiving a talk page full of old and settled discussions, how you then reverted that archive, and then removed the comment again. I will be consulting with an administrator first to see if he will intervene and revert you. You see, it does not matter that it's an old comment and that you shouldn't have made it or that it's still in the edit history. You do not get to remove it the way you have done. And don't waste your time telling me how you were in the right. You were not. Now I'm off to discuss this with someone other than you, and in a format where you cannot watch my interaction. Flyer22 (talk) 03:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:User pages
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:User pages. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 10:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Signpost Interview
Hi, Herostratus. I'm doing a Signpost interview series about paid editing called, "Does Wikipedia Pay?" Part of the series' goals is to speak with a variety of paid editors, but also those who work with them (or against them) on Wikipedia. Since you started Paid Advocacy Watch, I'd really like to get a sense of what motivated your approach and how you view it fitting into the ecosystem of the growing number of efforts to deal with the issue. Would you be interested in being the interviewee in the next few weeks? Interviews are conducted either on a userspace page or through email and are reprinted in full, with the exception of minor edits for concision, sequence, and clarity. Hope to talk with you soon. Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 14:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, sure. Herostratus (talk) 01:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Great! I'll get you the questions as soon as I can. I'm assuming the coming Monday's Signpost would be too soon... If you have the questions by this Friday the 11th, do you think we might be ready for the 21st (drafts are due by the 20th).  There will be about 20 questions, similar to the other interviews in the series.  Also, would you prefer to work over email or in userspace? Ocaasit &#124; c 02:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, yeah. Userspace I guess. Herostratus (talk) 02:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Here ya go: User:Ocaasi/Herostratus. Please let me know if I can help you with anything, or if you think the questions are fair or missing anything.  You can always propose one you think is important.  Thanks and good luck with the interview. Ocaasit &#124; c 19:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you guys mind if I took a crack at editing some of the questions? I have quite a few ideas to make them more neutral and you can revert anything you don't like. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 03:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The questions were edited slightly but they've been good to go for a few days. Have you been working on this off-wiki, Herostratus? Signpost deadline is tomorrow (to give enough time for copyediting). Think you'll have them done by then? If not, please let me know. Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 23:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, as you can see I wasn't able to get to this, I explained a bit more on your talk page. Herostratus (talk) 18:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it. Life gets complicated.  I hope you're back in full swing in no time.  That said, the interview is 'open' and you can do it any time in the next month.  Even this week ;)  Really, I just want to get the view of some paid editing critics and your project is the most prominent organized counterpoint to WikiProject Cooperation.  If you don't think you'll have time to do the interview soon, can you recommend some others who might be able to speak about their experiences, or on behalf of Paid Advocacy Watch?  Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 00:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Checking in
So, I just got back from Wikimania, and one of the most pointed criticisms I received was that the Signpost interview series on COI editing did not include enough 'opposed' voices. Is now a better time to do that interview? You're really a focal point of the 'concerned' camp when it comes to paid editing and I'd love to have your input. Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 19:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Company representative asked for changes to infobox figures; Not sure if correct figures placed in article
Dear Herostratus,

I am very confused and I don't know who I should ask about this. I joined WP near the end of April.

On Talk:Pacific Gas and Electric Company a company representative, PParmley, asked any editor without a COI to update figures in the infobox based on a company annual report and company website. I asked if the sources were considered reliable, verifiable sources and received no reply from PParmley. Then another user said to use figures from third party sources. Then another editor, Bouchecl, made the changes and cited WP:ABOUTSELF as a reason to use the company data. None of that bothered me.

My concern is that I have raised the question: "Do you mean million or billion? Revenue, Operating income, Net income"?

I have had no reply though I've asked that question on the article Talk page, PParmley's user Talk page, and just a little while ago on Bouchecl's user Talk page. I wonder if there is anything I should be concerned about. Millions are so different from billions. Is there a reason a company would want items to read millions if the items should read billions? Do you think it is a typo?

Below I have included my question from PParmley's user Talk page.

Sincerely,

Factseducado (talk) 15:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Here's what I wrote on PParmley's user Talk page:

"Basically the 2011 figures are in the millions while the 2008 figures are in the billions. So does the green upward facing triangle in the infobox next to each category need to change to a red down triangle?

Net Income 2011: $858 million[1] compared to 2008: US$1.338 Billion looks more or less straightforward.

I am confused when I compare the millions in 2011 with the billions in 2008. It's a very large change. Did you mean to write billion rather than million?

Revenue 2011: $14.956 million[1]

Operating income 2011: $1,942 million[1]

Net Income 2011: $858 million[1]

Revenue US$14.628 Billion (2008)[1]

Operating income US$2.261 Billion (2008)[1]

Net income US$1.338 Billion (2008)[1]"


 * Dear Herostratus, I am less confused. Though nobody has mentioned it, it seems that PParmley did have a typo in his or her edit request. He or she wrote, "Revenue 2011: $14.956 million[1]." It may have been that the decimal was supposed to be a comma. That would explain the difference between billions and millions. Factseducado (talk) 18:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

3si.org deletion information
Hello. I am a member of a forum that had a wiki page that seems to be deleted. I am trying to get some more information about the deletion to see if there's any way to get it back up and running. There was a lot of information and how to's on the page that cannot be found anywhere else, including pictures that are only located on the page. I am assuming it was deleted in 2007, per the deletion log, as well as "unnotable forum" as a reason. Not sure if that deletion date is correct, but a few weeks ago I was able to see the entire page and all articles/topics/how to's without a hinder. If there's anything I can do to make it qualify for being reposted, please let me know. Or any way to get all the info and pictures from it to rehost and post on our forum.

Thanks. Denraweb (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Earnt
FYI - Your recent edit to Brinsley Schwarz included "AFAIK there is no such word as "earnt" on either side of the pond" - please see "earnt" an "uncommon - but entirely acceptable alternative form of the simple past and past participle earned" - Arjayay (talk) 11:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, fair enough, thanks for the pointer. The main point of my edit was to remove the "(sic)"; if you want to restore the "earnt" out of deference to the previous edit (on the principle of stare decisis) that's OK with me, although an argument could also be made that really rare constructions ("<0.5% as common as earned" according to your link) ought to be discouraged. Herostratus (talk) 13:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Shooting of Trayvon Martin
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Shooting of Trayvon Martin. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 11:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

reply to post on my talk page
I noticed your little message on my talk page.

A bit of advice: you are more likely to have success in your attempted communications if you speak respectfully to others. I don’t think you can possibly be surprised to learn that the hectoring tone of your post (on my talk page) completely disinclines me to care the least about your opinions. If you feel the need to continue to write on my talk page, please do so in a polite fashion, otherwise I will simply delete it without wasting more of my time reading it.

Kind regards,

-- Ty rS  05:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Concur. An appalling diatribe.  Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 10:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, whether it's appalling or not is, to my mind, secondary to whether or not it's effective. If it gets the subject to stop trying to drive off good editors, then it's accomplished its purpose. If not, we'll go to Plan B, I guess. Herostratus (talk) 15:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for your continual support, Herostratus, no matter how aggressively you go about it at times. But, apparently, the opposing editor still doesn't get it, going on and on (on her talk page) about how she's the savior of sex-related articles, despite being unfamiliar with most of the Wikipedia policies and guidelines, misusing and misinterpreting some of the ones she does know of while also injecting her own POV into articles, and barely contributing any content. She even managed to sneak in a jab about my sockpuppet case (as if you are also "my sockpuppet"), despite there being evidence that I did not sockpuppet and ArbCom therefore having been divided on the matter (for example, I've additionally discussed with one member of ArbCom how to keep my brother contained, since he is not likely to stop editing Wikipedia; as long as he doesn't edit in support of me or sign up for a Wikipedia account without permission, it should be fine). But, like I stated on my talk page, my enemies (which I have very few of on this site thus far) are always going to try to use that case against me, as though it takes away from my contributions. Furthermore, the opposing editor referred to me as your protégé. Yes, I learned everything or most things from you, Herostratus (sarcasm). Apparently, the wrong things, if one is to go by what the opposing editor states. Somehow, I must have been the one who created or significantly contributed to all or most of these poor-quality sex-related articles as well, no matter that my contributions show that I haven't contributed to, especially not significantly, enough of them. You and others know what I'm doing when I edit these articles, and that when I set out to significantly improve any one article, it becomes a significantly improved article, and that's all that matters. As if we don't know that a lot of these sexual activity/sexual activity-related articles are in bad shape. It's clear by just looking at the almost ghost town that is WikiProject Sexology and sexuality that a lot of these articles are in bad shape. But to state that they are a joke and the worst of all the articles on Wikipedia? Just shows a sore-loser attitude from the opposing editor and a reflection of someone who isn't as familiar with Wikipedia as the rest of us. Flyer22 (talk) 00:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, right. Yes sorry to be so aggressive but, ah concern trolling like that is really out of line, and if it continues we need do something about it I suppose. If they guy stops harassing you then fine (except that I'm sad that it happenedd) as I'm stretched kind of thin right now; as long as he stays away from the child sexuality etc. articles I, right now, don't much care about the content. Yes I agree its a tough subject -- I think there are some subject that are just hard for us to cover, sex subjects but also I guess Israel/Palestine stuff and some other subjects (don't know too much about those really, just speculating). I kind of wish for those we could just stub them and have notice to the effect "Because of the nature of Wikipedia, our editorial pool, the limits to our human patience, and so forth, we just really aren't prepared to cover this subject in any detail. Try Google or something and good luck, and we hope you enjoy our coverage of the 99.9% of subject that we are equipped to cover". Herostratus (talk) 04:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Closure of Template:Dislike and Template:Like
Hi. You may be interested to know that your closure of Templates for discussion/Log/2011 October 28 has been mentioned at recently Templates for discussion/Log/2012 June 27. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 08:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to notify me. I actually spent some thought on that close and figured it went right into the bit bucket, but if it's useful again to review it, that's great. Herostratus (talk) 04:36, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it certainly shows that a good deal of thought went into that. Anyway, I can't see any benefit it reviewing it now, thanks. Cheers. -- Trevj (talk) 18:54, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Child pornography article
What do you make of this edit? I've already replied on the talk page. Judging by the user's "first" edit, and ones soon after it, I don't believe that this user is new to Wikipedia. I also don't know if I yet have any reason to be suspicious of him on child/underage teenager sexual abuse topics, but you know how these type of things begin. He's made a valid point about not all child pornography being sexual abuse, but you and I know that the sources are not usually talking about postpubescents or teenagers who sext each other or any of the examples he mentioned. Flyer22 (talk) 08:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't like that edit and reverted it per Wp:BRD with a note on the talk page. The editor does have a point that material not using live subjects does not incontrovertibly constitute abuse (although it might, depending on what is meant by "abuse"). He needs to find a way to express this without just deleting material that is sourced, germane, and certainly true as far as it goes, at the least. Herostratus (talk) 05:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Age of consent/age of majority topic ban
Hello, Flyer22 has made a statement that I INTERPRETED as meaning that she was seriously CONSIDERING proposing that I be topic banned from the age of consent/age of majority project. If she does attempt to topic ban me will you agree with her decision or disagree and if you agree with her what is the problem with my edits? Flyer22, I would rather that you wait and let Herostratus respond to my question instead of trying to debate me here. --RJR3333 (talk) 03:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Flyer22 says I misrepresented what she said and she never said anything about topic banning me from the age of consent/age of majority section. Here is what she said "Herostratus, if you have it in you, will you weigh in at Talk:To Catch a Predator#Age of consent 17-18? I'm about > < this close to requesting a topic a ban on RJR3333, in relation to all pedophilia/child sexual abuse/age of consent articles. I certainly have enough evidence against him to be successful in getting it. But whether or not I request a topic ban, I will be reporting him because of that latest WP:Consensus-violating edit of his...if it is not reverted. As I stated on the article talk page, he has no respect for the talk page environment/WP:Consensus...and that needs to change. Flyer22 (talk) 09:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)"http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Herostratus&diff=prev&oldid=500621484 . Flyer22 denies that she was talking about topic banning me "Like I stated, you have it backwards. I meant your descriptions of what has been transpiring between us. You also had the topic ban issue wrong, since it has not been proposed. You should leave Flowanda and others' talk pages, as well as the WikiProject talk pages, alone regarding this matter. You are again acting inappropriately. Flyer22 (talk) 04:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFlowanda&diff=500749400&oldid=500746581 was her response.  Is that a suggestion of possibly topic banning me or am I mistaken? If it is indeed that, are you in favor of topic banning me? And if so, what are your reasons? I would like to say right off the bat that one of Flyer22's reasons does not make much sense. She says have an anti-ephebiophilia and anti-hebepehilia bias in editing the articles and a bias that the age of consent and age of majority should be 18. In fact my view is that the age of consent and age of majority should be fifteen or sixteen, and earlier on in my editing at least two editors, Malke2010 and off2riorob, who now calls himself youreallycan, accused me of being "so opinionated" in favor of the age of consent being in the 15-16 range "as to be unable to contribute to the articles in a neutral tone or in a manner beneficial to their content" in off2riorob's words http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Off2riorob&diff=prev&oldid=448691118. Also here's are some links to edist I made earlier on to the age of consent reform article that would suggest off2riorob's accusation of bias against me was closer to the truth than Flyer22's  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Age_of_consent_reform&diff=446467756&oldid=446444383 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Age_of_consent_reform&diff=next&oldid=446469330 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Age_of_consent_reform&diff=prev&oldid=446444383 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Age_of_consent_reform&diff=next&oldid=446586327 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Age_of_consent_reform&diff=next&oldid=446593467 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Age_of_consent_reform&diff=next&oldid=446667438 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Age_of_consent_reform&diff=next&oldid=446744492. I also, even recently, added information to the voting age article about a country called the South African Republic where the voting age was sixteen and cited it http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Voting_age&diff=499375601&oldid=498769739. However, I believe that the bias off2riorob/youreallycan and Malke2010 criticized me for is now gone from my writing, so I believe my writing now is neutral. Also Flyer22 says my edits always try to make it look like pedophiles have to be 18 or the age of consent is 18 across the board but that is false. In the age of consent in North America article I corrected a false statement in the Ohio section which said that a person had to be at least 18 to be guilty of statutory rape, and corrected it to show that a 16 year old having sex with anyone under the age of 13 would also be guilty of that offense http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ages_of_consent_in_North_America&diff=494403140&oldid=494278499 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ages_of_consent_in_North_America&diff=next&oldid=494403140, I also early on in the age of consent reform article when talking about close in age exceptions omitted 16 from those exceptions because I pointed out that was already the age of consent in most states http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Age_of_consent_reform&diff=446371747&oldid=446276466, although I did this under an ip. And when Malke2010 tried to make the Chris Hansen and To Catch a Predator articles say that the age of consent was 18 in every state I opposed him and debated him on it for a long time http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Malke_2010/Archive_3#Age_of_Consent_Chris_Hansen  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARJR3333&diff=448650379&oldid=448646304. Flyer22 is accusing me of the opposite bias. Do you see either bias in my edits and is it enough to get me topic banned? Another one of Flyer22's original criticisms was that all of my edits were unsourced, but now none of them are, so that's not an issue anymore. In fact many times I have been adding sources for statement that were previously unsourced, I can think of specific examples, for example sourcing the statement in the age of consent in North America article that the marriage age in Indiana is fifteen, which was previously unsourced http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ages_of_consent_in_North_America&diff=450763154&oldid=450762880. And I added some links in that article, and sources in the marriageable age article, look at my link to the history and all the times I added sources for previously unsourced statements http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marriageable_age&offset=&limit=500&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marriageable_age&diff=453001946&oldid=453000248. So I would say my editing is much better sourced now. But I want to know what you think and what your criticisms are. Flyer22 also accuses me of having an obsession with her. We never got along in editing and she constantly nitpicked at my edits and I overreacted and said I hated her. However, I have already apologized for this and I'm tired of her constantly reminding me of it. Flyer22 appears to be very biased against me in her response to my work. She has never said anything positive about any of my edits. I am not saying this because I am obsessed with her, it is because I am concerned that she is trying to get me topic banned and I am responding to her reasons for why I should be. When I started editing this site you gave me an award for my edits to the age of consent reform article, I think it was the exceptional newcomer award http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARJR3333&diff=446658739&oldid=446654782, so I think you have a slightly higher opinion of my editing than she does, at least my earlier editing. So the gist of my question is, do you feel that I should be topic banned from the age of consent/age of majority articles? --RJR3333 (talk) 08:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

What the hell is wrong with you? Seriously. The above clearly shows obsession, as well as what I've been talking about regarding your inability to digest things properly. No, I did not state that I "never said anything about topic banning." I stated that you are going around asserting that I proposed a topic ban, when it is not a proposal unless I've proposed it to the community. You also neglect the fact that I made clear that I am not sure if I am going to propose a topic ban on you. Heck, I never even stated that you have an anti-hebepehilia and anti-ephebophilia bias (especially since I have been clear about "preference" defining these terms -- that a man who is sexually interested in a 17-year-old/18-year-old is not necessarily an ephebophile). That is you taking what I stated and putting your own spin on it. You stated that I have "never said anything positive about any of your edits," which is a lie. As recently as higher above, I even stated that your "edits are generally well-meaning, but WP:COMPETENCE is required." I am not the one who is constantly bringing up that you stated that you hate me. You are. Jeez, and you wonder why I've told you to stop speaking of me. You hardly ever report anything as accurately as you should. Now you've continued your creepy obsession by starting a new topic about this on Herostratus's talk page, going over things that he already knows because there's a whole section tackling it higher above. Then you have the gall to essentially request that I not comment until Herostratus comments...while you go on your ridiculous rant against me. News flash: Herostratus is ignoring you, just like this editor did. He's ignoring both of us. But good luck if you think that you are going to convince him to see me as the bad guy here. Flyer22 (talk) 10:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Blue (English band)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Blue (English band). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 12:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

LifeLock
While welcoming new editors {via redlinks @ recent changes) I ran across the article for the company LifeLock, a much advertised identity fraud prevention company. Over the past few days it has been scrubbed clean of any negative edits even the ones with references. The thing is I'm not sure how to proceed to replace the remove information in the best straight-forward drama-free manner. I thought of Rollback but that would be a pretty "deep" cut and I'm sure would antagonize the editor. Any advice? ```Buster Seven   Talk  15:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm reading the SPA page<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk 
 * Should I tag the user? He self-identifies as a identity fraud profeessional and only edits this article. I'm a novice at this so bear with me If you don't mind. I wanna get it right.```<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  15:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * A single purpose account is a pretty strong indication of COI, but often the COI board has situations like this where it's just a clueless fan. Seeing this convo is over a week old now, I suspect they're blocked by now. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 23:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

COI+ certification proposal
I've thought of an idea that might break our current logjam with paid editing. I'd love your sincere feedback and opinion.


 * WP:COI certification

Feel free to circulate this to anyone you think should know about it, but please recognize that it hasn't been agreed upon by either PR organizations or WikiProjects or the wider community. It's also just a draft, so any/many changes can still be made. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi 15:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Human Sexuality Ribbon
Herostratus, I just wanted to let you know that I just finished making File:Human Sexuality Ribbon.png and (given that you currently use a Placeholder for that one) I thought you might want to know about it. Cheers! Achowat (talk) 17:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Mediation Committee
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Mediation Committee. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 12:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Needing Help With An Article
The article we created called List of Katy Perry songs tells people all the songs by Katy Perry. Someone changed the columns and mixed them all together. I tried to undo what they did, but it didn't work. Do you know how to fix this problem? Please answer this question at my talk page. CPGirlAJ (talk)`

Russian language sources for Kirlian photography‎ advice/assistance
User:Mbreht has had a bit of difficulty finding his feet as a new editor due to a combination of language difficulties and working in WP:FRINGE areas. However, he seems to be getting the hang of things and he has gone to great lengths to explain the changes he would like to make on the Kirlian photography‎ talk page, much of which involves material that's on the Russian wikipedia. I'm a new editor myself and could use some help figuring out which Russian-language references ought to be considered reliable for the purposes of what is mostly an article on fringe medicine. If you could drop by and take a look I'd really appreciate it.

Thanks much,

<span style="padding:3px;color:gray;font:400 0.9em 'Garamond', serif">Garamond <span style="padding:3px;color:gray;font:400 0.9em 'Garamond', serif">Lethe 21:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Child protection
A discussion you may be interested in. 134.255.247.88 (talk) 06:56, 27 August 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 19:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Elizabeth Cotton, Lady Hope
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Elizabeth Cotton, Lady Hope. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 13:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution RFC
Hello.As a member of Wikiproject Dispute Resolution I am just letting you know that there is an RFC discussing changes to dispute resolution on Wikipedia. You can find the RFC on this page. If you have already commented there, please disregard this message. Regards, Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 08:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Template talk:Sexual orientation
Your input is needed with regard to the above linked discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 18:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Commented there. Herostratus (talk) 19:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The new template proposal is up. I emailed you about it, but never got a reply. So it seemed best that I alert you here on your talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 11:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Orgastic potency
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Orgastic potency. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 14:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Teh LOL
LOL FTW. Perfect! Binksternet (talk) 12:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Oddball Barnstar
I was going to do it after I read that Slate article. Now I don't have to. This can go straight to WP:UA, as well.

I found a CC-BY picture on Flickr someone submitted of some homework that actually was eaten by a dog to illustrate the article with. Mind if I nominate it for DYK once I get the image? Daniel Case (talk) 20:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, that'd b great. Anything else you want ti do with the article would be great, too. Thanks for the barnstar! Herostratus (talk) 20:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the recognition. Yes, your name is familiar to me from ... somewhere around here. I have some more things to add to the article (TV Tropes has a page with some interesting examples, some of which are helpfully linked) so I won't be nominating it just yet (don't worry, you'll get credit too). Daniel Case (talk) 04:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Super! Herostratus (talk) 04:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

It is accomplished! Daniel Case (talk) 21:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Woo-hoo! Very nice. I would have helped out more, but... you know... the dog.... Herostratus (talk) 22:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Life Begins at Forty (TV series)


A tag has been placed on Life Begins at Forty (TV series), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Sorry, artifact from botched move

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Herostratus (talk) 04:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for The dog ate my homework
The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Gregory Kohs and his views
Hi, Greg has seen you mention him and has commented at Wikipediocracy in this thread. If you wish to respond publicly I would suggest joining Wikipediocracy.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:39, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hahahaha yes I'd like to join Wikipediocracy. I have to take care of a few things first, such as shaving my scrotum with a rusty soup can lid, which I'm sure would be a lot more pleasant. I do look at Wikipediocracy from time to time, much as another man might visit the monkey cage at the zoo (and for much the same reason), but join? Hahahahahah! Other considerations aside, I don't think it'd be prudent to give them my information, since they have made credible threats to, you know, track me down and have me killed, so geez, not to sure about that. I do appreciate your suggestion though, it made my day. Herostratus (talk) 18:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh OK I did look at that thread. If I hurt his feelings that was wrong of me; I was just using him as an example. I guess it's easy to forget that behind the internet troll persona there is a real person, with, I suppose, real thoughts and feelings. (Well, feelings anyway.) Maybe I should have used Willy on Wheels or something instead (although Willy on Wheels is also a real person, and not really as good example for my point, so...). Anyway, I don't want to get into a battle of wits with Greg Kohs (hahahahahaha, just kidding), so if you see him tell him.... I don't know, something. Give him a treat or something, or whatever will make him feel better, I guess. Ice cream sandwich maybe. Herostratus (talk) 18:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * A battle of wits with Kohs? Wouldn't that be like arm-wrestling with a midget? Prioryman (talk) 22:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Haha, exactly. Although IIRC he was pretty convincing at that link, in that his text was 1) in a really large font and 2) in color. I always find that convincing -- who wouldn't! However, he failed to achieve the internet troll trifecta (ALL CAPS too) so ultimately his argument failed, hahahahaha. Oh my. Herostratus (talk) 01:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)