User talk:Kurtis/Archive 7

This week's articles for improvement - 22 July 2013 to 28 July 2013
posted by Northamerica1000(talk) 13:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I've added an opt-in section for those interested in receiving TAFI notifications on the project's main page, located here. Those that don't opt-in won't receive this message again. Also, a revised notification template has been created, located at Template:TAFI weekly selections notice. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Mass killings under Communist regimes
Hey Kurtis. You had said that you were working on a rewrite of the MkuCr article a little while back, but that it was a bigger job than you expected. Don't feel that you are under any obligation to slog through the entire thing. If you have even a partial improvement, you are welcome to add it to the workpage we have set up for possible future edits (pending talk page consensus, per the sanctions), which you can find here. Thanks for the effort. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:37, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I was just thinking about that page, and I was going to get back to you guys. I'd be glad to post some things there, once I can finally put the links I've gathered to text. :-) Kurtis (talk) 05:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Precious again
  sharing

Thank you for sharing (to quote you): "interpersonal interaction", "through our dealings with one another, we can grow as individuals", "confidence in the Wikipedia community", and for sharing baklava, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (10 February 2009)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC) A year ago, you were the 209th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in br'erly style, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Two years ago, you were the 209th recipient of my  Pumpkin Sky Prize. - Thank you for, - did you see that the arbs who commented don't agree? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:23, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Really? My impression was just the opposite. I got the sense that they actually did side with Pigsonthewing in rejecting the accusations of violating his topic ban. I didn't follow that whole AE thread from start to finish though, so maybe I missed something. :/ Kurtis (talk) 07:27, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, yes, they agreed that he didn't violate in this case, but they didn't draw the conclusion that he possibly might improve Wikipedia by adding infoboxes to articles he creates. - Independent from this incident (which they described as "testing" and "grey area", ignoring this: "a productive editor making a change to an article that is so obviously an improvement"): where would be the danger to WP if he did that on a 1RR condition? Shaking head in not understanding for about a year already, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:38, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

My recent RfA
I should have said thanks for your support sooner. ```Buster Seven   Talk  03:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries. :-) Kurtis (talk) 04:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect evidence
Please correct your summary of the decision in the Manning case. We did not decide that there was a consensus for "Bradley". We decided that there was no consensus at all as to what the name should be, and that since "Bradley" was the long term stable location for the article, that's where it should be in the absence of a consensus.&mdash;Kww(talk) 17:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've fixed it now. I read through the decision, but forgot to change the wording before saving the page. I thought it was clear from the way I'd represented the evidence that no consensus existed. Kurtis (talk) 23:36, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Manning
You wrote "Manning herself has asked that people refer to her using female pronouns".

As the dispute concerns the article title/name, you may want to clarify that Manning mentioned both pronouns and name ("I also request that, starting today, you refer to me by my new name and use the feminine pronoun"). Josh Gorand (talk) 19:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That's basically implied, but I'll probably make that addition shortly. Kurtis (talk) 23:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill [talk] 18:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Your Arbitration evidence is too long
Hello, Kurtis. Thank you for your recent submission of evidence for the Manning naming dispute Arbitration case. As you may be aware, the Arbitration Committee asks that users submitting evidence in cases adhere to limits regarding the length of their submissions. These limits, currently at 1000 words and 100 diffs for parties and 500 words and 50 diffs for all others, are in place to ensure that the Arbitration Committee receives only the most important information relevant to the case, and is able to determine an appropriate course of action in a reasonable amount of time. The evidence you have submitted currently exceeds at least one of these limits, and is presently at 720 words and 9 diffs. Please try to reduce the length of your submission to fit within these limits; this guide may be able to provide some help in doing so. If the length of your evidence is not reduced soon, it may be refactored or removed by a human clerk within a few days. Thank you! If you have any questions or concerns regarding the case, please contact the drafting Arbitrator or case clerk (who are listed on the case pages); if you have any questions or concerns about this bot, please contact the operator. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Hers fold ArbClerkBOT(talk) 04:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, sorry about the multiple warnings earlier. One of the arbitrators alerted me to the problem, and I believe it's been fixed now. You should not receive any further warnings for this case. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 15:44, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Question
You list several userboxes containing your opinions about various states and countries... so, how do you form those opinions? How much do you read about the situations in those nations until you're confident that your opinions are sufficiently informed?

And, by the way, isn't Asperger's already a mild form of autism? 92.251.121.67 (talk) 00:12, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice to meet you, 92.xx. You ask some very good questions. I'll be glad to answer them. :-)
 * One of my great passions in life is learning about a broad variety of different topics: computer sciences, physics, world history, geography, biological life, etc. But above all else, I am extremely passionate about human rights. In the most general sense, I support freedom for everyone, regardless of their life situation. With regards to most of the causes that I support, not only have I taken the time to read about them on the side, but I've also followed news developments pertaining to them very closely. For example, I oppose the ruling family of Saudi Arabia because of their hardline Islamist ideology and authoritarian methods. To start with, I consider them guilty of gender apartheid against their women, who aren't even allowed to leave the house without wearing an abaya and being in the company of a male consort. It's the only country in the world where women are not permitted to drive. They are also known for severely discriminating against expatriate workers from throughout Asia and Africa, abuses against the Shiite community in the Eastern Province, and publicly beheading people for nonviolent offences &mdash; they still perform executions on charges of witchcraft and sorcery.
 * And that's just the tip of the iceberg in a laundry list of reasons why I detest the Saudi monarchy. What makes it worse is the fact that there doesn't seem to be any outrage over their human rights record, which deeply troubles me.
 * Granted, I don't think Saudi Arabia is a controversial state to denounce. Some of the ones I've listed are no-brainers to most people: a free Burma, the end of totalitarianism in North Korea, etc. But then there's the more divisive issues, such as Kosovar independence or the Syrian civil war. I have been following the latter since before the uprising even began in March 2011; already very familiar with the human rights situation in Syria, I was fully anticipating the Arab Spring to arrive there sooner or later. I also knew it would be far more complicated than any other Arab country, if for no other reason than for the fact that any conflict would be exploited by regional powers waging a sectarian proxy war against each other. I support the downfall of President Bashar al-Assad. I believe that he and his regime have committed crimes against humanity on a grand scale for the sake of retaining power (yes, I do think he deployed sarin gas in Ghouta). However, unlike many others, I do not see opposition to Assad as being mutually exclusive from opposition to al-Qaeda and its affiliates, including their Syrian branch Al-Nusra. They too have committed widespread atrocities, especially against the Christians and Alawites. The long and short of it is, I support a free, democratic, and secular Syria. Easier said than done, but it never hurts to be optimistic. Now, Kosovo is an entirely different story. The region has a very complicated history, especially during the existence of Yugoslavia as an independent state. I'll spare you the lengthy explanation of the context, the situation after the breakup of Yugoslavia, the guerrilla war conducted by the terroristic Kosovo Liberation Army against ethnic Serbs, the resulting ethnic cleansing campaign against the Kosovar Albanians conducted by the regime of Slobodan Milosevic, the UN presence in Kosovo, the 2008 declaration of independence, etc. All you need to know, as it pertains to my support of Kosovar independence, is the fact that the vast majority of people in Kosovo support it. Everything else is immaterial to me; it's what the people want that I care about. The issue of Kosovar Serbs should be resolved through negotiations between Serbia and Kosovo. Those are just two examples of my less popular stances; obviously they're not the only things people will disagree with me on, but it just goes to show that I've based my opinions on the research I've done, not so much on what everyone else thinks.
 * Asperger's Syndrome is considered a pervasive developmental disorder on the autism spectrum. At its most basic, you could say it is simply a mild form of autism &mdash; but that in itself would be a drastic oversimplification of what is a very unique condition. Every case is different, and there is little in the way of commonalities among people with Aspergers. I have a particularly mild diagnosis. Most people would never guess that there was anything different about me. It manifests itself more in the negative way that I would oftentimes interpret subtle nuances of socialization. For example, if I overheard two people having a conversation and discerned my name, I'd get nervous and assume that they were talking about me. If I smiled at somebody as I walked past them in the hallway and they didn't return it, I would get the sense that I've made them uncomfortable. Things like that. I've worked to get past that, with great success. Most of the classic symptoms of ASD are difficult to pick up on with me. Despite my naturally introverted nature, I'm known in real life for being very outgoing and pleasant. I am quite good at making friends because it's so easy to get along with me. Am I eccentric? Somewhat, but not exceptionally so. In no way does it impair my ability to communicate with others.
 * If you have any more questions, feel free to ask. Kurtis (talk) 04:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * As an update, my original diagnosis of Asperger Syndrome is now disputed. Apparently I might actually have Social Anxiety Disorder. Kurtis (talk) 12:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter
Books and Bytes Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013 by , Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved... New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted. New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis?? New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration Read the full newsletter ''Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC)''

height of Stalin is disputed
Hello Kurtis, there seems to be some inaccuracy in the Stalin article, and from the edit-history you looked like you might know more about the subject than me. Can you comment here, if you have a moment? Talk:Joseph_Stalin Thanks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, 74.xx. It's true that I am very interested in the life and times of Joseph Stalin, and that I've been pretty active on subjects pertaining to him. However, I have very little knowledge about his height. If there's a general consensus among independent third-party sources, then that should probably be the way to go. His height obviously would have changed over the years, so I'm not sure what agreement there would be. Sorry I couldn't be of any further assistance. If you have any further questions that need answering, feel free to ask. :-) Kurtis (talk) 04:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi!
 Hello Kurtis, AutomaticStrikeout has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Glad to see you're still around. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) – Rest in Peace, 22:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Yep, I'm still here. I've actually been around on a pretty regular basis for about five and a half years now. I have no intention of leaving any time soon. :-) Kurtis (talk) 22:49, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 14:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas


Diannaa (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message. --Diannaa (talk) 16:54, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! And a Merry Christmas to you too. :-) Kurtis (talk) 21:11, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Worse
Just to reply from the RFA. I found all aspects of KG's behavior bad particularly what you mentioned. However on my rough and imperfect sliding scale of worse-osity, the comment was abusive and outrageous. However the application of BLPBAN was not only abuse of admin power, but abuse of an admin power designed to be a nuclear option that cuts off all challenges to authority. On a macro scale I classify that worse, although If I were Eric I'd likely feel otherwise. Won't argue though if you personally rank them differently.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh OK then, that makes perfect sense to me. I totally understand where you're coming from. :-)
 * I think our difference of opinion is based on two separate perspectives; my leanings are a little more geared towards the personal than the big picture (probably goes with being an INFP). Ascribing such malice to Eric bothered me even more than the arbitrary restriction that followed; the latter was a blatant abuse of power to silence a critic, but the former dehumanized him. This should not suggest that I don't find Eric to be exceedingly coarse in manner at times (although I've never failed to get along with him in our extremely limited past interactions), just that I categorically reject the accusations that were placed against him. I was also troubled by Kevin's disinclination towards an apology. At least an acknowledgement that he has caused someone serious, unjustified offense through his words would have sufficed. Maybe such introspection did occur, and if someone provides evidence that runs counter to my interpretation of events, then I'll stand corrected. Nevertheless, that whole debacle was profoundly disheartening, to say the least. Kurtis (talk) 00:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your post
That was a nice and positive post over at the Arbcom case page. Don't know if it's true but you make a good case, and it's pleasing to hear something positive. It does seem sometimes that one can get a negative vibe from looking at the various places where disputes are aired, but of course the Wikipedia is generally very successful overall and continues to be. Herostratus (talk) 13:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your sentiments, I appreciate them.
 * Yes I do get a negative vibe from certain aspects of Wikipedia. Actually, I'll broaden that to say that I find the internet in general a pretty negative place these days. For instance, every other Facebook post is about how society is going to Hell in a hand basket. There's all this reminiscing about the "good ol' days" when kids were highly motivated and respected their elders. According to some sources, crimes such as child molestation, rape, and murder are on the rise, when in fact these offences are just being reported on a more consistent basis. These atrocities have always existed, and an argument could be made that they are on the decline. Seems like everyone who participates in forums about international news stories such as Syria's catastrophic civil war or the crisis in Ukraine has some sort of conspiracy theory to push; it's as if there's no such thing as an internal conflict that was sparked by domestic sources (i.e. authentic revolution). I think the world needs to become a more positive place &mdash; it's no more unrealistic than being stuck in a cynical rut all the time. Kurtis (talk) 20:55, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Re
Thank you for letting me know. I too agree that WP's gotten a lot better - I've not really seen an administrator abuse his or her power the way I've seen them in the past. Regular users seem to be a bit more civil on average, too. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 21:38, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And it's a relief, because Wikipedia functions so much better without all the power trips and misplaced aggression. Kurtis (talk) 21:41, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Hope you feel better enough to return to the Wiki full time! - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 21:48, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that as well. I've been going through a huge identity crisis and it's really taken its toll on my well-being. I'm looking into adequate support structures to help me overcome these obstacles, but there is little doubt that it's going to take me a while. Kurtis (talk) 22:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've recently been having difficulties w/ what I believe to be anxiety; a lot of different pressures coming at me all at once and all. Here's hoping that the both of us can be in a better way w/ respect to our mental health. :) - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 22:13, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Re: thank you
Back when i was an administrator, you often had strongly left wing writers trying to impose their slant on articles about left-wing subjects and topics. Just look at the edit history of the Communist Party of Australia - you have a communist editor stating that non-communist and anti-communists shouldn't be allowed to edit the article. I got frustrated that these left wing people were getting away with it and tried to bring attention to it through taking action. Paul Austin (talk) 05:06, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As a left-wing editor myself (albeit anti-communist), I completely agree with taking action to mitigate systemic bias in principle. But with regards to the RfC filed against you back in 2006 (holy crap, that was almost eight years ago now), the examples provided were a cause for concern. If you want my honest assessment, it seemed you were frequently too eager to play the admin card rather than attempting to deal with a given issue diplomatically.
 * For example, I assume you understand in retrospect how the 100-hour block placed on Chicocvenancio for edits such as these (the first of which was self-reverted almost immediately afterwards) came across as unfair. Chicocvenancio clearly did have a political bias of sorts, and his edits could easily be perceived as POV-pushing. But as a new user with relative inexperience, he was not yet fully aware of Wikipedia's encyclopedic standards for neutrality; I guarantee you that in his mind, he was actually attempting to counter an anti-communist bias. The first thing anyone should do when dealing with someone who meets the definition of a "civil POV-pusher" is to approach them about it, and try reasoning with them. It was clear from his posts on the talk page that he was willing to discuss his changes with other editors, and so persuading him into accepting the established consensus might not have been a huge challenge. By administering a block, you ran the risk of turning away a potentially valuable contributor. It's also troubling that you immediately suspected him to be a sockpuppet, but failed to substantiate any evidence in support of that claim.
 * Make no mistake about it, I am entirely in favour of taking a tougher stance against POV-pushing (which is precisely why I backed away from Waldorf education following my assessment of the article), but only after other venues of dispute resolution have been attempted. Editors who are chronically unable to recognize their own biases and how it impacts their editing may unfortunately have to be turned away from topic areas of concern; it's a harsh reality, but a reality nevertheless. Blocking someone from the onset to preemptively head off future trouble has two adverse effects: it deters them from contributing to the site altogether, and it sends a chilling effect to everyone else who may wish to participate in editing a given page. It's in the spirit of editor retention to favour the carrot over the stick. Wikipedia is a community-based project &mdash; pretty much everyone has something to offer. Kurtis (talk) 06:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I doubt I'd be made an administrator ever again though. I genuinely did see communist/extreme leftist editors thanking each other on talk pages for "looking after" articles on Lenin, Fidel Castro, et al. Someone had to do something but no one did. Paul Austin (talk) 16:30, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you did. There are many people who cannot acknowledge their own biases when editing, and it often clouds their judgment as to how others with differing opinions may view their changes. Just for the record, although I disagree with many of your decisions back then, I still do hold you in high regard as a long-standing and valued contributor. There are other ways to make a difference in the struggle against POV-pushing, most of which don't even mandate the use of sysop tools. You can open RfCs on article talk pages, so as to attract attention from the broader community and achieve a more impartial consensus. That being said, would you say that the problem has improved or worsened since that time? I find Wikipedia a much better source today than it's ever been. Kurtis (talk) 23:40, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey!
I came here to ask you why this was still a redlink, but then I saw the mental health notice above and decided to just leave you a message wishing you lots of luck. I expect you will be feeling better soon :)  → Call me  Hahc  21  17:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note, I really appreciate it. Yes, I've been struggling quite a bit in real life these days, and my activities on Wikipedia have diminished in recent months. I still haven't gotten a ton of CSD work in, unfortunately, and I'm a bit slow when it comes to anti-vandal work. I think I do eventually want to submit another RfA, once I get back into the swing of things and feel confident in my chances at passing. I suspect if I'd submitted one today, I'd fare much better than I did last time around, but I'm still not sure if it'd pass.


 * Speaking of adminship, congrats on your own recent successful RfA. Always great to bring another capable hand into the fold. :-) Kurtis (talk) 01:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! :-) Well, I am sure you will do an excellent sysop. You have always been a mature and seasoned user, one of those who rarely loses their heads. I will be more than honoursed to serve as your nom whenever you decide to put yourself against the slaughtering wall ;-)  → Call me  Hahc  21  20:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. I'd be glad to accept you as a nominator when the time comes. :-) Kurtis (talk) 00:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your RfA support
Hi there, a bit of a form letter from me, Cyphoidbomb, but I wanted to drop you a line and thank you for your support at my recent RfA. Although I was not successful, I certainly learned quite a bit both about the RfA process and about how the community views my contributions. It was an eye-opener, to say the least. And per your comment at the RfA, yeah, I totally would've scattered my own eggshells around anything related to deletion after all those opposes. Thank you for assuming good faith on my part. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem. And why wouldn't I assume good faith on your part? There's no reason for me to think you have any bad intentions or anything. You're doing fine &mdash; keep up the good work! Kurtis (talk) 13:52, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Belated thanks
I know this is terribly late but I wanted to take a moment to thank you for your participation at my RfA. I was very inspired by the many that supported me and it’s that feeling of friendship and camaraderie that keeps me coming back to the project. So, thank you for your support and for your continued sense of fairness and compassion in all areas of WP. I look forward to the opportunity to work together in the days to come. Best wishes, -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 19:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Gun control arbitration proposed decision
Hello. You have participated in the Gun control arbitration case, or are named as a party to it. Accordingly, you may wish to know that the committee is now voting on its decision for this case. The decision is being voted on at the Proposed decision page. Comments on the decision can be made at the Proposed decision talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK  [•] 11:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Notice
Hi, this is a courtesy notice to say you have been mentioned at Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. --Fæ (talk) 07:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've responded there. I'm sorry if you felt as if my comments had cast you in an unduly negative light. The issue I had was with your request for a WMF official to intercede; in retrospect, I probably should not have mentioned your position as chair of Wikimedia UK, the relevance of which was disputed even by the Arbitration Committee at the time. Kurtis (talk) 09:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

You won something!

 * Heh. Well, this was unexpected. Thanks! :-) Kurtis (talk) 19:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration amendment request(Fae)
An arbitration amendment request(Fae), to which you contributed, resulted in a motion.

The original discussion can be found here. For the arbitration committee -- S Philbrick (Talk)  16:09, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your participation
Kurtis, I would like to take this moment and thank you for taking part in my RfA that happened a while ago. Although it didn't turn out as I had planned, I certainly appreciated all the comments and suggestions given by you and other people. I will learn from all of them and will hopefully run again someday when I'm fully ready. Thank you. TheGeneralUser (talk) 13:32, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Template:Geographic reference
To answer your question, yes, all it does is print out the text for each citation. In my mind, it's a bizarre thing to use as a template and it violates WP:T3. At the same time, yes, it does have 9 various assorted citations put in it with the only reasoning being that those are all somewhat related to each other and so editors can just go through them all without having to remember other citations (although the documentation that says "don't use R2, use R8 now" tells you why it's problematic. I've opened an RFC at here but I don't expect much. I'm certain I'll be told that it's used too much to be changed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 14:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for posting here &mdash; I was a bit confused at first, but now I understand what the template is used for. If consensus is against its retention, perhaps the best solution would be to phase it out, using the references themselves on each article before returning it to TfD. I'm still undecided about whether it benefits the project more than individual citations, but I'll keep an eye on the RfC and participate once I've heard some strong arguments on both sides. Kurtis (talk) 15:10, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It's cryptic as hell, it cites a variety of sources (many out of date) all in one piece (the one India one hilariously makes my point) and all it's doing is hard-coding cite web citations. It can be renamed, split or finally deleted (all of which will take years to accomplish) but if people think that it's fine as it, I'll shrug and move on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems like Rich Farmbrough has a novel idea being developed at this makeshift sandbox. I think templated references can be useful when used in the right places, so as to avoid doing a bunch of repetitive work on various different articles. Kurtis (talk) 17:37, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That version has now been implemented, which means we don't need to worry about the change in the Factfinder website. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:48, 22 June 2014 (UTC).


 * Heh. All the better, then. Good work, Rich! Kurtis (talk) 23:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * Thank you for taking the time to recognize the consideration and effort I put into that post. It means a lot, really. I'm glad the issue there is being handled effectively; neither party is innocent, but hopefully they can work this all out. Kurtis (talk) 17:30, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed, superior BY FAR to the great majority of TL;DR posts. I think if the same words of wisdom were instead used to comment on the editorial interaction there, it would be more productive. " My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee welcome! " 18:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your sentiments. Here's hoping you can get the situation between yourself and Paisan1 resolved, and find ways to work better with one another. Kurtis (talk) 23:03, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That would be the hope of anyone. But it looks like some of our fellow editors are are not willing to let that possibility spring up. " My master, Annatar the Great</FONT>, bids thee welcome! " 00:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Just as an FYI, my diagnosis of Asperger's Syndrome is now disputed. Kurtis (talk) 05:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 25 June
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:33, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * On the Sohar page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=614338036 your edit] caused a DOI error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F614338036%7CSohar%5D%5D Ask for help])
 * Ah, I see what I did wrong. Fixed. Kurtis (talk) 03:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC case opened
You were recently recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 26, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. Before adding evidence please review the scope of the case. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC draft principles & findings
Hello. This is a courtesy note that the draft findings and principles in the Media Viewer RfC case have now been posted. The drafters of the proposed decision anticipate a final version of the PD will be posted after 11 August. You are welcome to give feedback on the workshop page. For the Committee, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:41, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC arbitration case - extension of closure dates
Hello, you are receiving this message because you have commented on the Media Viewer RfC arbitration case. This is a courtesy message to inform you that the closure date for the submission of evidence has been extended to 17 August 2014 and the closure date for workshop proposals has been extended to 22 August 2014, as has the expected date of the proposed decision being posted. The closure dates have been changed to allow for recent developments to be included in the case. If you wish to comment, please review the evidence guidance. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC arbitration case - motion to suspend case
You are receiving this message as you have either commented on a case page or are named as a party to the case. A motion has been proposed to suspend the Media Viewer RfC arbitration case for a maximum of 60 days due to recent developments. If you wish to comment regarding the motion there is a section on the proposed decision talk page for this. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs). Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 02:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)