User talk:Mr. Stradivarius/Archive 14

Restricted-use media list
I was just made aware by Platonides that, while the code is in place to fix the bug, it must still be merged and deployed before it can be used on "live Wikipedia". Platonides expects that to happen before the RfC ends. I just wanted you to be abreast of it (no pun intended). – P AINE E LLSWORTH  C LIMAX !  14:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for letting me know. I don't think there's any hurry. :) — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 14:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Smile mask syndrome
It's been about two weeks since you made some additions to the underlying article for this DYK nomination, with the edit summary "more to come". Are you planning to get back to it soon? Or should this be remanded to Piotrus for him to work on? One way or another, the nomination needs to be making progress, so it doesn't get closed for inaction. Please respond on the nomination form. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, yes, I've been neglecting this. I will have some time later on today, though, so I'll do it then. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour  ♪ talk ♪ 01:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Great. Thank you for replying so quickly. When it's ready, please drop a note on the template page, so we can get a new reviewer. Thanks again! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Piotrus and I have sorted it all out now, and I've left a message on the template page as you suggested. Best — Mr. Stradivarius on tour  ♪ talk ♪ 05:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Datatune
Hi! If you give me 1-2 weeks, I'll locate objective and reliable sources which will backup the information about this product. The time is needed because this is an historical page, as this product is no longer commercial. Thanks for your understanding. Michael Haephrati (talk) 21:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi there. The deletion discussion will remain open for one week, and if the consensus isn't clear after that, it will be relisted. The minimum amount of time you have is one week, and the maximum is probably three. If you find appropriate sources, I'd be happy for the article to be kept, but as I said, I couldn't find any online. Best — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 21:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey, Mr. Stradivarius, thanks for rejecting the tag. I know A7 doesn't apply to software, but I mistakenly thought it was web code, which would be covered under A7. I should have looked at the screenshots and would have seen that it's standalone software. Thanks also for your follow-up in prodding and AfD'ing the article. Sorry for the bother.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries. After this, you only have four points left on your rouge admin quota for this month though. ;) — Mr. Stradivarius on tour  ♪ talk ♪ 00:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Society Barnstar
(barnstar archived)
 * Thank you! I'm flattered. I know that there are many more Wikipedians doing much more than I am to improve knowledge of non-Western societies, but I'm glad that I've been able to help in some small way. For your part, that was probably the most pleasant content dispute that I've ever been in. :) — Mr. Stradivarius on tour  ♪ talk ♪ 05:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a good one; all the best end up on improved article and new wiki friends :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Update
FYI, please see this question and answer about the Concerns and controversies over Confucius Institutes article. Keahapana (talk) 23:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for the update. Sounds like a sensible course of action to me. Best — Mr. Stradivarius on tour  ♪ talk ♪ 03:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Need your help
Hi Mr. Stradivarius, my english is poor. If I give you a little article, could you correct it? Kind regards. Selucreh1 (talk) 19:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Selucreh! Maybe - what's the article? — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 21:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Stradivarius. Thank you for your answer. Here is the article: the Policical Regime of Turkey. The french version: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A9gime_politique_de_la_Turquie Kind regards. Selucreh1 (talk) 9:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)



Political regime
This article presents various informations on the political regime of Turkey. According to United Nations, « the majority of States in the world today describe themselves as democratic. However, democracy is a dynamic social and political system whose ideal functioning is never fully “achieved”. Democratization, furthermore, is neither linear nor irreversible and thus both state institutions and citizens must monitor and maintain oversight of this process. Accordingly, all countries, as well as the international community itself, could benefit from continued strengthening of, and support to, their democratic processes. » Evaluate the political regime of a country is not obvious, insofar as, up to now, no international agency whose judgment is not questioned enter into the spirit of the game. But we have some indicators emanating from the public and private sector and from the associations. These indicators give rise to many debates, at least they have the merit of existing. The purpose of this section is not to impose a point of view by anoncing that "the political regime of Turkey is “... ". The aim is to present objectively to the readers all known assessments, leaving them:
 * the choice to check the reliability of the analysis;
 * the freedom to form their own ideas;
 * the freedom to add other indicators, especially if they are contradictory.

Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)
Turkey is a founding member of the OSCE (1973). According to the OSCE, in 2012, the number of jailed journalists in Turkey has almost doubled (95 from 57 : world record). The main points raised by the OSCE in this note are:
 * most journalists are in prison based on the following laws:
 * The Anti-Terror Law of Turkey (also known as Terörle Mücadele Yasasi, TMY), Articles 5 and 7 relating to articles of the Criminal Code on terrorist offences and organizations or assisting members of or making propaganda in connection with such organizations, as well as the lengthening of sentences;
 * The Criminal Code of Turkey (also known as Türk Ceza Kanunu, TCK), Article 314 on establishing, commanding or becoming member of an armed organization with the aim of committing certain offences.
 * Courts often impose exceptionally long imprisonment sentences. The longest conviction is 166 years and the longest jail sentence sought for a journalist is 3,000 years. Many journalists face double life sentences if convicted, some without possibility for parole.
 * Courts do not tend to grant pre-trial release of defendants. There is concern that arrests and long pre-trial detentions without conviction are used as a form of intimidation.
 * Pre-trial detentions remain very long. In some cases journalists held in prison for up to three years are still awaiting trial. Some journalists have been imprisoned for more than five years while their trial is ongoing.
 * Journalists often face several trials and are often convicted for several offences. There is one journalist who faces 150 court cases.
 * Media outlets reporting about sensitive issues (including terrorism or anti-government activities) are often regarded by the authorities as the publishing organs of illegal organizations. Courts often consider reporting about such issues as equal to supporting them.
 * The reform of related laws has not occured, despite statements made by the authorities about the necessity for such reforms. Not only do the laws need to be reformed, but their implementation as well. Court practices interpreting laws remain widely varied throughout the country.

The Economist Group
The Economist Group is conducting research to rank countries according to their political regime. Four types of political regime are defined: In 2011, according to The Economist Group, the Democracy Index of Turkey is 5.73. At the global level, Turkey is ranked 88th and belongs to the group of countries with a "hybrid" political system. The democratic performence of Turkey is lower than Norway (9.8 points), France (7.7 points), Poland (7.12 points), Indonesia (6.53 points), Mali (6.36 points), Namibia (6.24 points), Zambia (6.19 points), Ghana (6.02 points), Bangladesh (5.86 points) and Malawi (5.84 point ). This overall score is the average of 5 ratings: Between 2008 and 2011, Turkey's overall score increased slightly (0.04 points ) from 5.69 to 5.73 points. In terms of "government operations" advances are net (1.07 points ). In terms of "electoral process & pluralism" and "political culture" no significant progress is observed (stabilization). However, Turkey is declining in terms of "political participation" (-0.55 points ) and "civil liberties" (-0.29 points  ). Over this period, The Economist Group, observes a deterioration of the media freedom and a deterioration the freedom of expression and encourage Turkish politicians in their efforts to drafting a new democratic and civil constitution.
 * advanced democracies
 * imperfect democracies
 * hybrid regimes
 * authoritarian regimes
 * the"electoral process and pluralism." The criteria taken into account in this section are free elections and free formation of political parties. Turkey score is relatively high (7.92 points) and is ranked 70th in the world behind Denmark (10 points), Portugal (9.58 points), France and Romania (9.58 points), Bulgaria (9.17 points), South Africa (8.75 points), Ghana (8.33 points) and Mali (8.25 points).
 * the "functioning of government." The criteria taken into account in this section are the degree of government transparency, the degree of government sovereignty (whether or not military or religious pressure) and the degree of corruption. Turkey score is relatively high (7.14 points ) and is ranked 36th in the world behind Norway (9.64 points), South Africa (8.21 points), equal to France (7.14 points) and ahead of Italy (6.43 points), Romania (6.07 points) and Greece (5.71 points).
 * "political culture." The criteria taken into account in this section are the degree of democratic and political culture, the perception of leadership (authoritarian or democratic), perceptions of the role of the army, the perception of the role of technocrats, the perception of democracy and public order, the perception of the relationship between democracy and economic performance, the degree of separation between the temporal power (political) and timeless power (religious). Turkey gets an average score (5 points ) and is ranked 84th in the world behind Sweden (9.38 points), Ireland (8.13 points), Botswana (6.88 points), Tunisia (6.25 points), Syria, Algeria and Senegal (5.63 points).
 * the "civil liberties." The criteria taken into account in this part are the degree of media freedom, the degree of expression and protest freedom, the degree of censorship, the freedom to form professional organisations and trade unions, the possibility of seizure of government by petition, the use of torture by the state, the degree of justice independence, the religious tolerance and the religious expression freedom, the degree to which citizens are treated equally under the law, the perception of security measures, the perception of individual freedoms and human rights, the existence or absence of racial or religious discrimination, the use of the theme of insecurity to reduce individual freedoms. Turkey gets a bad score (4.71 points ) and is ranked 110th in the world behind Ireland (10 points), Chile (9.41 points), Brazil (9.12 points), Zambia (7.35 points), Mali and Bangladesh (7.06 points), Liberia (6.18 points), Pakistan (5.29 points) and Mauritania (5 points).
 * the "political participation." The criteria taken into account in this section are the abstention rate, the autonomy degree of religious and ethnic minorities, the women share in parliament and the citizens participation in political life. Turkey gets a bad score (3.89 points ) and is ranked 102th in the world behind Netherlands (8.89 points), Palestine (7.78 points), Iraq and Lebanon (7.22 points), Tunisia (6.67 points), Mozambique (5.56 points), Egypt (5 points), Senegal and Yemen (4.44 points).

Freedom House
Freedom House produces an annual global survey that assesses the state of global freedom as experienced by individuals. The survey measures freedom (freedom as the opportunity to act spontaneously in a variety of fields outside the control of the government and other potential domination centers) according to two broad categories: The survey does not rate governments or their performance, but rather the human rights in the real world and freedoms enjoyed by individuals. In 2012, Freedom House describes Turkey as a "partially democratic" country, as well as Morocco, Pakistan, Colombia, Venezuela, Nigeria, Mozambique, Madagascar, Tanzania, Bangladesh, Senegal and Uganda. The report worries about the authoritarian tendencies of political power through the indictment of politicians and journalistes.
 * political rights: they allow citizens to participate freely in the political process, including the right to vote freely for distinct alternatives in elections, to compete for public office in political parties and organizations, and to elect representatives who have a decisive impact on public policies and are accountable to their electorate
 * civil liberties: they include freedom of expression and belief, freedom of association and organization, rule of law, and personal autonomy without interference from the state.


 * I've replied over at User talk:Selucreh1. Best — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 10:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you Mr. Stradivarius.
 * I agree to merge this part to existing article Politics of Turkey
 * Mr. Stradivarius, it is interesting to note that serious organization as European Commission and OSCE worried about the situation in Turkey. I didn't find any assessments with only positive or negative aspects. However, there is both positive and negative aspects :
 * positive aspects :
 * European Commission :
 * »Work on a new constitution started via a relatively democratic and participatory process »
 * »debates continue on topics perceived as sensitive, such as the Armenian issue or the role of the military «
 * »positive steps have been taken in terms of participative work on a new Constitution «
 * »the 2009 democratic opening «
 * The Economist Group
 * the"electoral process and pluralism." « Turkey score is relatively high «
 * "political culture." « Turkey score is relatively high «
 * Between 2008 and 2011, Turkey's overall score increased slightly (0.04 points) from 5.69 to 5.73 points. In terms of "government operations" advances are net
 * Actually, Mr. Stradivarius, after reading all this reports it seems to be a real lack of democracy in Turkey. I love this country and it is abnormal to see that people goes in jail due to their belives.
 * I removed "The aim is to present objectively to the readers all known assessments" : i pasted this sentence to show people the neutrality of the text »
 * Mr. Stradivarius, Is it a correct English? I ask you that beceause i pasted this article but someone told me it is a bad english. So if there is english mistakes, could you correct them?
 * The modification are at User:Selucreh1/sandbox
 * Thank you for your point of view
 * Waiting for your recommendations
 * Kind regards
 * Selucreh1 (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
I'm an idiot. Help? Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  14:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Heading offline now. Please feel free to implement any fixes you think are required, whether it means reversing my actions or not; I've got complete faith in your ability to not screw it up as capably as me... And thanks, incidentally, for catching me in the act of incompetence before I did any further damage. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  15:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it, it took me a few tries to really learn how to do history merges too. It's pretty late here, but I might be able to have a look tomorrow. There's no rush, though - the process will be the same even if others edit the article in the meantime. What we really need to do, of course, is rewrite WP:HISTMERGE, as it's thoroughly confusing. Especially those images - I still don't really get them after having done several histmerges. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 15:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hear hear; if I understood it properly (which I demonstrably do not) I'd be over at WP:HISTMERGE with a red pen right now. And yes, the images are the most confusing part! Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  22:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

FOOM
FOOM indeed! I was trying to speedy delete that other page, but somehow thought I was on that page when I tagged it. Quite embarrassing! Michitaro (talk) 15:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Easy enough to do, don't worry, and I've done my fair share of misclicks in my time. Look on the bright side, at least neither of us have managed to delete the main page... By the way, if the barnstar is too explosive for you, you're free to remove it or to replace the image with a slightly less explosive one. (File:Bacon Explosion.jpg?) — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 15:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think I will keep it as a reminder of one of my sillier moments. Michitaro (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Moving free media tag
Much appreciated if you could look over over license tags used with Photo of art and carefully apply similar changes.

Thanks in advance. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm afraid you'll have to do that bit by yourself - I do have WikiBusiness of my own that I'd like to get on with, after all. :) I'll be happy to answer any other protected edit requests you might make, though. Best — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 10:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, But watch for the protected edit requests Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hah, Never check your own code.... I've found a glitch in the coding of the parser function namely there shouldn't be a | between the #ifeq: and the first param. It's wrong in all the updated templates :( Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, joy. :P Let me have a look - just a sec. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 13:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I ended up making a complete mess of it too, but it looks as if things are finally sorted out. Obviously not one of my better days... — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 13:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh no... I've just seen your request at Template talk:License migration complete, which will mean I'll have to redo all of those edits. I'm obviously not going to do a good job of this today, so I'll look at it again tomorrow. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 13:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * BTW The reason that I'd added the dw param to the license migration call in GFDL(and related templates) is because otherwise the daughter templates invoked, don't know about the suppression. I.E The suppression occurs on the GFDL portion of the tag, but would not occur with the Creative Commons portion. A daughter template can't read params supplied to a parent template unless that parent explicitly passes them down to it. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 07:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I get that, and if the daughter template was providing some function other than just adding free media, I would agree that the parameter needed to be passed through. As it is, though, it wouldn't make any functional difference, so I don't think it's necessary. In my view, it would be increasing the code complexity for no real reason. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 11:09, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Whitespace bug
That's a good catch, thanks. There could be some templates where parameters consisting only of whitespace are meaningful (they would have to be nameless parameters, since named parameters are trimmed by MediaWiki), but I'm sure that's a rare case.

BTW, there was another issue that came up with my boilerplate code at Template talk:Navbox, in that it affects the order in which parameters are parsed, which can break things if the parameters contain any references and a at Module:UnitTests shows that frame, tick, and cross are all given appropriate values. Johnuniq (talk) 00:58, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry. You are right--Pepo41 (talk) 17:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, your edit introduced the code:  This assigns   to the   variable, and a   value to the   variable. Have a look at this tutorial to see why. Best — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 02:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback
Thanks for the feedback. Appreciate the constructive tone Gbawden (talk) 11:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries. I'm glad it came across that way - those messages can seem pretty terse, because they also have to fit inside the edit summary. If you want to see some more examples of what does and does not constitute G11, I heartily recommend looking through the list of G11s that were overturned at DRV. I certainly found it useful, anyway. Also recommended are the essays listed at Template:Speedy deletion navbox. Best — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 11:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC notifications
Hi Mr. Stradivarius, would it be possible to include me on the notices you place on people's user talk pages regarding the progress of the RFC? Just so I can keep the Arbitrators apprised of the progress. I'm asking as an editor (to make it easier so I don't need to keep checking) not as a clerk - no is a perfectly reasonable answer. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, no problem. I might be sending one out quite soon as well, as only a few editors have participated since I closed the previous discussion. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 13:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok thank you. :) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Mr. Stradivarius,
 * Reading this and as a contributor who follows closely the evolution of the RfC (I was among the contributors who complainted to the ArbCom that appointed you) I wanted to tell you that I think you and the other contributors do a fair good job on this page. Given the difficulty of this topic and the time since which there are problems on this, the is an exceptionnal result !
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 18:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your words of encouragement - they mean a lot! I can totally understand the criticisms of the process, but hopefully things will work out in the end. For now, all I can do is to try not to concentrate too much on past mistakes, and to do my best to make the RfC work. Wish me luck. :) — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius on tour  ♪ talk ♪ 07:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Good luck then ! Pluto2012 (talk) 17:16, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Greetings, Mr. Strad. Due to certain circumstances, I have been away too long from closely following the discussion. I would like to be involved again, but am a bit confused about where we stand in the overall process. In the next step, will I have the opportunity to comment on the quality and validity of the numbered drafts, or am I too late to do that? Would such comments belong on the main talk page or on the new sub-page? Can those drafts still be tweaked and clarified? Will they ultimately be presented together with background information (giving, e.g., pros, cons, and context)? Hertz1888 (talk) 04:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi there. You do still have the opportunity to comment on the drafts, but you won't after we move to step four. As you can see from the talk page message I sent out, I've set a deadline of the end of today for this (Wednesday 8th May), so there's no time to delay. If it turns out that there needs to be more discussion to find a consensus on the content of the drafts, then I can always extend the deadline, but you have to understand that the process has already come under criticism for being too long and drawn-out, so I won't take such a decision lightly. I recommend that you set your thoughts down on the drafts now, under the relevant section at Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion, and see what other participants think about them in the remaining time before the deadline expires. Decisions about whether to present the drafts with background will be made as part of step four, however, so that is not so urgent. Hope this answers your question. Best — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius on tour  ♪ talk ♪ 07:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Once again, alas, illness has interfered, and I will be unable to participate in step four as I had hoped. I want to thank you for your reassurance that my proposed draft in step three can yet be included.  I also want to thank you for your patient, fairhanded and skillful management of the entire process.  Best wishes, Hertz1888 (talk) 06:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Not engaged in an edit war
Hi :-) To cut a long story short, I started a discussion which established a consensus. The other side didn't respect the consensus, and when I started a despite resolution discussion they didn't show up. I am not the one engaged in an edit war and if you look at the talk page you'll see I'm actually the one who started 2 discussions trying to resolve the issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.60.197 (talk) 15:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi there. A consensus that "the other side didn't respect" doesn't sound all that much like a consensus to me. But anyway, does it really matter that much who is in the infobox for the remaining two weeks of the discussion? I think it would be much better to just let the discussion take its course and then update the infobox after it has been closed. Would you be willing to try this? Best — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 15:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying. Fair point, but "the other side" is 2 people while the side that reached consensus is a heavy group. That's the point, the discussion finished. I left the info box untouched until the discussion finished, and was shocked to see the other guy continue it (I tried despute resolution and few people came to support me, but the other side, the 2 people, didn't turn up):
 * I started another discussion: Even though the previous consensus resolved it, the other side pretends it didn't so I started that one. After that discussion I can assure you no one will revert anyone because it will be too obvious. 90.196.60.197 (talk) 16:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Gospel of success
I do not want to edit war, only prevent removal of material germane to the article's deletion discussion. Don't you think special measures are needed to preserve such material? If so, isn't some sort of protection warranted? Attleboro (talk) 16:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Stefan Kovács
Hi! This my opinion. It was strange and very sad. I gave a reliable source and the result you protected the previous version. It is not good direction. - Csurla (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've replied over there. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 21:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

What do you think...
I know that I am not quite ready for adminship, but what should I do to become one. I mean, I read all the guides and such, but what does a request of adminship come down to? I hope you can help my confused mind, Chihin.chong (tea and biscuits) 21:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi there. To get the best idea you should take a look at a few of the previous successful and unsuccessful RfAs that we've had, and also you can have a look at the guide to RfA. Let me know if you have any questions after that. :) Best — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 21:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, the minimum number of edits a successful candidate had in the last year was about 5000, and you now only have 418, so you are right that you will need to get a bit more experience before running... — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 21:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Requesting someone to close a discussion
Hello.

I was wondering if by any chance there is a way of requesting a neutral party to close a discussion in this vast Wikipedia? I'd like to ask someone neutral to close this. I prefer a neutral person with power to rename articles, like an admin or a pagemover (if such a right exists).

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi! Now that's an easy one. All you need to do is start a new section at WP:ANRFC. Best — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius on tour  ♪ talk ♪ 07:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks a bunch! Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

RFC
Do you contest the importance to the RFC of, or the truthness of, the statement that "No news agency, or at least none that could be found after an extensive search, with a guideline for neutral reporting allows Jerusalem to be reported as the capital of Israel."?

Do you understand why it is improper on wikipedia to refer to a single source as "many sources"?

Do you understand why mentioning only how pro-Israeli sources treat the capital of Israel outside of prose and not mentioning how neutral sources treat the C of I outside of prose is unbalanced and would introduce bias?

And also, why did you let all those personal attacks by Tariq go without notice for the last three months? Sepsis II (talk) 10:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not about whether I contest the statement or not, but whether there is a consensus for its inclusion. There was no consensus for it in step three, and none has developed for it since, hence it can't be included. As for the statement only being backed up by one citation, I know that this isn't ideal, but it's what we've got. I seem to remember other participants saying that there were other sources that we could use to back the statement up, but we never got around to actually including them. If you are concerned about this statement introducing bias into the RfC, I suggest that you post about it on the RfC page, in the discussion section. You are more than welcome to do that, but it can't go in the source summary itself unless it has a consensus. And I'm not going to comment about Tariqabjotu's alleged personal attacks now - I think that debate would best be left for another day. Best — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 12:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC close criteria
Hi Mr Stradivarius,

Once again, congratulations to your management of these discussions that are not easy.

That may have been discussed but if so I missed it and I apologize. I wonder on what bases the final draft will be chosen ?

Kind Regards, Pluto2012 (talk) 11:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * About time :P (I thought you'd died or something). We miss you at DRN buddy. Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 11:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Haha, well I did drop off the radar for a little while, 'tis true. But there's life in the old dog yet. :) I think I'll be taking a short break from dispute resolution after all of this is over, but DRN remains in my thoughts - I may well revisit it sooner or later. All the best — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 12:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * @Pluto - the closers will close the discussion based on the arguments presented and their relevance to policy. The participants at the moderated discussion opted for quite an open format, so it is likely that a lot will be left to the closers' discretion. On the other hand, it could be an easy close if a clear consensus develops - only time will tell on that one. Best — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 12:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

 * You're welcome! And I was just starting to feel peckish, as well. ;) — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 12:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC advertisements
The RfC has not yet been advertised at the places mentioned here. -- Ypnypn (talk) 13:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sheesh, give a moderator a break, will you? I'm on it. :) — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 13:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

 * Hehe, no problems. :) (And the answer is, I should probably get some more sleep...) — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 21:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Scott Brown AFD
I think the point about using the Royal Navy source for notability of Scott Brown, as discussed at the AfD is that notability is coming through WP:SOLDIER's presumption that people who've reached certain ranks in the armed forces are notable. As such, we just need a reliable source that says he had that rank and the Royal Navy is assumed authoritative on that kind of information about itself. (On the other hand, there is the slight concern of point 5 of WP:SELFSOURCE: "the article is not based primarily on such sources".) Dricherby (talk) 09:41, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Seralini affair
HI Mr Stradivarius: I think you may be misunderstanding who is responsible for which aspects of the Seralini affair page. You say, "Also, a great deal of this version consists of detailed criticism of the study". Yet my edits are an attempt to redress the detailed criticism of the study, which was the main thrust of the article before I got to it. Please read the article as it stood before I arrived and started editing. It is a demolition job on the Seralini study and without doubt defamatory to Prof Seralini and his team. My edits put the other side of the story. Can you respond to this please before I address the other points, as clearly I cannot get any further while this fundametnal misunderstanding persists. Please also note that the Users bobrayner and runjonrun have been deleting my edits to a very substantial degree, whereas my edits to their work have been minimal and well explained. 99% of my edits have consisted of adding balancing material to a n unbalanced, unfair and libellous article. Please have a look at the edit history and let me know your response. The one edit I concede is fair is that wiki does not allow 'original research', so I can find a citation for the fact that GM foods are not labelled in the US. Unless I and other concerned wiki users receive something like fair treatment over this issue, I shall be pressing for removal of the page as defamatory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dusha100 (talk • contribs) 10:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Adminship
Hi, I'll nominally state that I am interested in running, but would you mind giving me a few days to think it over and do some reading up on the nomination process? And thanks of course for considering me! Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 19:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, not a problem. :) The best way to get a feel for the process, in my opinion, is to have a look at the past several successful and unsuccessful RfAs. It's also a good idea to do RfA at a time when you are not overly busy, because you'll need to respond to any questions that might come up. I'd say allow for one hour of wiki-time every day, just to be on the safe side. Ping me when you're ready and I'll set everything up for you. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 02:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for waiting, I'd be happy for you to start the nomination now. One concern I have is regarding the issue that prevailed during my previous nomination, which was that I falsely claimed copyright on a number of images.  It's certainly not an issue that I want to avoid, as it's something I've long learned from and have since become highly active over at Wikimedia Commons, where I've uploaded a sizeable number of properly licenced images.  None of the three opening questions are particularly appropriate, so would it be best to wait for it to be asked about in one of the follow-up questions? Cheers,  Mattythewhite (talk) 21:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries. Is it correct that I ask users for a co-nomination statement?  Just want to be sure I don't inadvertently breach WP:CANVASS.  And would you say there's an appropriate number of co-nominators to seek?  Looking through the past RFAs it seems to range from none to two.  Hopefully I'll have accepted the nomination and answered the opening questions sometime today or tomorrow. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 16:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Sources for Jerusalem
I'd like to add a few more sources to be included in [Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jerusalem#Source_summary this list]. How should I go about doing that? Thanks. --GHcool (talk) 20:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi there. Sorry, but you can't update the source summary now - we have arrived at the current version after much hard-fought debate, and adding new sources would be controversial. However, you are more than welcome to add new sources to the general discussion section. Best — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 21:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Stradivarius. thank you for formatting my references. I just thought I would point out, the first two references do not pertain to my comments. They were cited in the previous discussion (14) in reference to Nashidiani's draft. In fact I might remove the the cite quotes altogether and just link to my userpage where I have documented the sources. As it stands there is a huge wall of text, nearly all of it consisting of citations/references. Dlv999 (talk) 10:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for letting me know. Looks like I missed those two. I'll go and fix it now, but feel free to fix it yourself the next time. If you use the incantation  for all the reference lists it will add only the references that appear below the previous appearance of , if any. There's more info at HELP:MULTIREF if you want. Best — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 10:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * And if you're worried about the refs taking up too much space on the page, you can always collapse the reflist by using cot and cob. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 10:42, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I see you got there before me. I was just about to make the exact same edit. :) — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 10:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Single-purpose account?
Hi

I'm curious to know your definition of a single-purpose account. Even without knowledge of my previous IP, calling me single-purpose account for the Jerusalem issue seems questionable as only one other edit of my current IP can in any way be construed as related to that conflict. My current IP could possibly be seen as a single-purpose "sports at ITN" account (however, "[a]n editor can be an SPA within a given subject, but if they make edits on an unrelated page, the tag should not be used for these edits"), but there I also used my previous IP which had a more varied background. Single-purpose account for "sports" seems to wide to be useful.

Thank you for considering 85.167.109.26 (talk) 14:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi there. Your edit to the Jerusalem RfC was edit number 15 from this IP, with the first of those edits being 23 May 2013. That seems to fall under the definition of "few or no other edits outside this topic" pretty easily. Sorry, but we can't take into account edits from other IPs when determining SPA status, as we have no way of knowing if they are from the same person or not. Why not create an account? This would sidestep all of these problems. Best — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 21:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If you would be so kind as to consider my arguments against the tagging set out below I would be most grateful. Firstly, I believe that a previous IP with a similar edit pattern and no date overlap would be taken into account if the question was a block or similar sanction, hence I assumed it would be relevant in a positive direction as well. Secondly, to me "few or no edits outside this topic" seems to imply at least a plurality within the suspected target area; whereas by your count I was at 93.33 % edits in other subject areas (I realise the sample size is small). Thirdly, the essay says that in "communal decision-making, single-purpose accounts suspected of astroturfing or vote stacking will sometimes have a tag added after their name, as an aid to those discussing or closing the debate" (my emphasis). It seems that more than being new is required. Furthermore, the template documentation advises against its use except where "there are multiple new accounts or IPs voicing the same opinion". Finally, a simple search of the RFA let me find the other "taggees". Disregarding the other editor who objected to the tag, the edit histories of the other tagged editors seem more clear (especially the two first), and I fail to see a fair comparison of my edit history and theirs leading to the same conclusion. Thank you for the suggestion of getting an account. I won't, as I simply dislike registering online. (I am aware that an IP is less anonymous so that's not the issue.) Hope you'll consider my arguments, if not it's no biggie; but I have no problem admitting that I do find the tagging slightly upsetting. 85.167.109.26 (talk) 23:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I have noted my disagreement in a superscript linking to the previous version of this section. Wish you all the best 85.167.109.26 (talk) 22:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem - clarification of statements
Hi Mr. Stradivarius, I understand I should not get involved in any discussion before closing. However, browsing the contributions so far I spotted several comments that are ungrammatical, misspelled, have words missing, do not seem to be in the right (support / oppose) section, etc, to a degree that I would be unable to determine whether the argument is policy-based or not.

How do you suggest we should handle that? Will you, at some time, ask editors for clarification? Or should I outline what rationales I (from a language/grammar point of view, of course) don't understand? To you, or to the editor in question? On the RFC page or the editor's talk page? Or do I just discount what I don't understand? --- Sorry, you have a lot of questions to answer these days and weeks, but I had to add mine. Thanks, Pgallert (talk) 15:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd say it's best to let me ask editors to clarify their statements. We don't want anyone to be able to claim that you were involved with the debate before the close. In that vein, it's probably best that you don't ask me about any individual statements that you would like to see clarified, as that could be seen as getting yourself involved by proxy (although that claim would be rather tenuous, in my opinion). You should be on safer ground if you outline some general characteristics of posts that you would like to see clarified, and I can then keep an eye out for them when they crop up. Your description above is a bit too general, though, and I can't really tell to what comments they might apply. Could you give me a little more detail? Having said that, there is no requirement that commenters clarify their comments if they don't make sense or don't follow policy. You are free to simply ignore such comments in your close. It is also not a problem to treat a comment as if it was in the wrong section if that is how it seems from its content. In the end it is your interpretation of the comments and how they conform to policy that counts, not what the editors intended when they made them. Of course it would be ideal if these two things matched up, and asking for clarification is definitely a good thing. However, it isn't strictly necessary for our purposes. Hope this answer helps. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 02:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks Mr. Stradivarius, I thought along the same lines. As for the individual statements, I thought it would be best to wait another week or two, as editors still amend their points of view. --Pgallert (talk) 08:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, I do observe a rather widespread misunderstanding in the !voting on the drafts (alternatively, I have misunderstood this and would be happy to be enlightened): The introductory remark the drafts may not be intended to be the first sentence of the lead has not been considered by many, and the relevant intention has not been made explicit in any of the drafts.
 * The more complete drafts that show the place of the contentious statements within the lead are discussed in a way as if it was guaranteed that the the article Jerusalem would actually start that way.
 * Some shorter drafts receive opposition for making too prominent the political dispute, again as if Jerusalem would actually begin with these phrases.
 * Some drafts receive opposition for lacking information about where in the lead they would be placed. Yet, the introductory paragraph at Drafts at a glance explicitly allows such drafts. It thus seems as if such opposition is aimed at the RfC aim and structure, rather than at the draft itself.
 * I'd be happy to know what you think about this. Cheers and happy weekend, Pgallert (talk) 07:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * This was a point that I brought up with the participants in the moderated discussion, as I was worried that we may get comments that opposed drafts for the reasons that you mention. There was never any consensus to make all the drafts equivalent, though, hence we have this situation. I think I will need to go through the RfC and remind people that the drafts are not all equivalent, and possibly invite people back to revisit the discussion in light of this. Hopefully that will make things a little clearer, although, again, you are free to interpret these comments as you think best when you close the discussion. Best regards — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 14:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the help at Tea Party movement
In this section you edited in for us, there are two words, "applications for," that have been accidentally boldfaced. This is some of that tweaking you mentioned. When I first threw together that first draft a couple of weeks ago, I was in a hurry and "tax-exempt status" was actually a fact error. It was pointed out for me, so I added the two words to correct the error and boldfaced them to draw other editors' attention to them: "applications for tax-exempt status." Never intended for the boldface to make it all the way into the article mainspace. Please correct that. Thanks .... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:33, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * . Hm, I probably should have noticed that. Thanks for pointing it out. :) — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 01:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

RfA
Hi! Thanks for the congratulations and the virtual t-shirt. If I knew that there wa a shirt involved I would have run years ago. :) - Bilby (talk) 15:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey, what can I say, it's kind of a tradition. :) Wear it with pride! — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 15:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Infobox
[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module:Infobox&diff=558283120&oldid=558281588 This edit] would fix the immediate problem but you may have a neater way to do it. All the other data fields would need something similar as well. -- WOSlinker (talk) 13:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I think I see, but I don't have time to look into it properly tonight. One drawback - that edit broke half of the other test cases... — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 13:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've now [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module:Infobox&diff=558284184&oldid=558283120 moved the \n] to a different place & the testcases now work again. -- WOSlinker (talk) 13:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's looking much better. Still not quite the same in this test case though. If you have a solution for that, great - otherwise I'll look into it tomorrow. Thanks for the help! — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 13:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)