User talk:Mr rnddude/Archive 7

PantherLoop
Thank you so much!! PantherLoop (talk) 06:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Senor Freebie
Thanks for that bit of careful research - as that specific claim is at the core of the dispute, I think it would make a valuable contribution to the discussion on the article talk page? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Already done, forgot to ping you to it . Mr rnddude (talk) 11:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a smaller version because I wanted to deal with the central claim. The African American GI's bits have already been dealt with and are now sourced and accurately written. The central focus is on pay and meritocracy and also Aboriginal segregation. I'll chuck that bit in as well. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:51, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, excellent. Thanks a lot for your help with this. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

RE: that ani thread
The disruptive IDHT, WP:BATTLEGROUND and filibustering is getting ridiculous. Could you please try and ping an admin to close it? Twitbookspacetube 14:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * , no for two reasons. 1. I don't know of an admin who would want to close it or who would be appropriate to notify and 2. I would be immediately accused of bypassing the discussion and canvassing admins that are agreeable to myself regardless of who I notify. It may be days to weeks before the thread is resolved for the sole reason that it is in a state of such disarray that "trainwreck" is an accurate description. I will avoid commenting on the thread anymore to avoid further burdening of it, I only commented today due to the simply untrue accusation DK levelled in an attempt to deligitimize the thread. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:11, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If you continue to canvass administrators, you will likely find yourself blocked. Your messages must be neutral (that is direct policy). And we've already sent three different closure requests to the Administrator's Noticeboard. The only thing any of us can do is sit back and wait.  Dark Knight  2149  20:16, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

March Madness 2017
G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:


 * tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
 * updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
 * creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * yeah I don't think he's worth two barnstars either :p ;)
 * Thank you I appreciate the gesture. Out of curiousity, which of my contributions (edits) brought you to my humble(brag) page (you could have arrived at any of a million users' talk pages) - although, I confess, I am astute enough to recognize this as being motivated beyond simple gratefulness for my contributions and in fact a part of "Wikipedia task 7 - Gratitude" of your course on Online Communities :). I also see that you are a relatively new user to Wikipedia, feel free to ask questions if you have any. You have one more task that I can see within your Wikipedia assessment for finalizing your article and reflecting on the experience. For that matter, excellent work on Modern Lovers (novel). For quick reference you might want to look at Featured_articles or Good articles/Language_and_literature and compare your work to the work of Wikipedia's best (according to us) articles. I've been relatively inactive over the past month or so, but, I check-in regularly so do see messages posted to me within a day or two of them being posted.  I'm surprised I'm worth the one ;) Mr rnddude (talk) 04:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Template I requested
Hey. I hope all is well. I was wondering if the template I requested is still on? Thank you. Callmemirela 🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  16:23, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * , sorry I had completely forgotten about the template. has compiled all the colors, I was wondering (since you did the legwork) if you wanted the credit to be acknowledged in the module history. You'd just need to copy paste your list straight into the module from your page since you've formatted it as well. Otherwise, I can get started on building the template and module on Thursday - I'm working today, tomorrow and Wednesday. I haven't created the module yet so you'll be taken to "create" the page. The data module doesn't require any special coding or anything. Just type "return {" in line 1 and "}" at the bottom after your list. Basically what this does is allow you to input a team name into the template which will then refer to the correct line in the color data module and lift the color data from there to be used to colour the template itself. This means you don't have to constantly refer to a color scheme and manually add the colors in. The other module will decide where the colours go; tri-colour for the header. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Jan to Mar 17 Milhist article reviewing

 * Thanks . Mr rnddude (talk) 12:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

ANI notification
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Drmies (talk) 22:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Outside input from who for Bengal Famine?

 * When I copy/pasted from my userspace (after 1 year of work), I put it immediately in MILHIST A-Review hoping that would get eyes on it, but I was mistaken in my perception of its level of activity. There really isn't anyone to get outside input from Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * , understood. I'd put in a request for a temporary lock of the article (auto-confirmed) on WP:RfPP if it continues. That'll force the IP to the talk page. I'll reply with more in a short while just trying to think. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry,, nothing else comes to mind except posting a message on the various Wikiprojects for comment. That solution, however, would only be useful if the IP will accept the outcome of the discussion. The British Empire and India Wikiprojects appear semi-active, the Bangladeshi one doesn't appear nearly active enough to be relied upon for quick response. The problem with this is that the IP has taken great issue with the entire update - not just the removal of the quote. They obviously have a partisan wish for the article to be biased against Britain. Their attitude does not suggest to me that they will be willing to collaborate or accept the outcome of a discussion. Inevitably I see this escalating into a game of whack-a-mole. *Sigh* Mr rnddude (talk) 14:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll see what I can scare up, maybe next week (busy this week for sure and maybe next week too). Thanks! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:57, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem. I'll add the article to my watchlist and keep an eye out for the IP. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Lul
I'm not getting dragged back into it either, but obligatory wikilink. Timothy Joseph Wood 13:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * - Ahhhh.... I only just got it. Clayton Bigsby. Goddamn it. Didn't even cross my mind. Touche. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Just imagine what it would be like to edit Wikipedia in a day and age when the Chappelle's Show has fallen into the public domain. It's gonna be glorious. Timothy Joseph Wood  13:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

ANI comments
''Calton, you've been here 12 years, do you really need a link to WP:ASPERSIONS to be told why that was inappropriate. I recommend you leave him alone.

And you've been here less than a year-and-a-half. I recommend you leave the advice-giving to people with some experience. --Calton | Talk 05:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Besides my Wiki-age do you have another complaint? That said, I freely acknowledge that I came across as condescending in the first sentence of the quoted comment. That is in part why I removed it. My apologies. I will not be retracting the recommendation though. I firmly think that this is slowly creeping towards harrassment. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Besides my Wiki-age do you have another complaint? Well, there's your selective reading comprehension, here and at ANI. Hint: drawing attention to your "Wiki-age" was not the actual point of my comment.


 * I freely acknowledge that I came across as condescending... NO, you actually WERE condescending; a true apology -- not an "I'm-sorry-if-you-were-offended" dismissal -- would recognize that.


 * I firmly think that this is slowly creeping towards harrassment [sic] And you would be wrong, positing a ridiculously sensitive standard of slippery road of harassment -- two queries for second opinions, one already upheld. --Calton | Talk 16:52, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ... on your first point, well no duh. Why do you think I went on after that comment and addressed the rest of it? That was an intentionally terse/curt response aimed specifically and solely at your contentless wiki-age comment. Was that not obvious? On your second point of "came across" vs "were", fair enough though that wasn't my intent. I was apologizing for being condescending not for you thinking I was condescending. Again, I saw it was condescending, that is in part why I removed it. I removed a lot more than the one sentence too if I recall. There was no intention to deceive with that comment. On your third point, I'll take the L. That something came of it, does not mean your complaint itself had merit. Your OP was (signficantly reduced); The name and contribs, makes me suspicious. The main problem I have with that is that the contribs part of it was about where they were contributing not what. Had you cited disruptive editing, vandalism, edit-warring, anything at all then it would have been meaningful. As you self-evidently show on your second AN/I post where you cite mediocre content creation on White nationalism as your NOTHERE rationale. I'll give you an example of what I mean by saying your first AN/I post was not merited; It's exactly like Richard Spencer's getting punched in the face spawning the discussion over whether it's ever "okay to punch Nazi's". Your punch may have started the discussion, that doesn't mean it was a meaningful contribution to it. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Template removal
Hello,

I don't really understand what's going on on the Panthéon-Assas University.

On the 10th of May, you wrote : "Can we leave the templates alone (in the article) for about a week or until all three of us are completely satisfied that they are no longer necessary.". Today, "Following Mr rnddude remarks ", Launebee removed the. Do you back this change, and did you express an other opinion since the 10th of May ? XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 11:46, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No,, my opinion hasn't changed since the 10th of May. I did indeed request that the templates stay in the article until we had resolved all of the issues. As far as I am aware, we're yet to (properly) resolve any one of the issues. I said by this point that I would put it up at DRN. I may still do that once the AN/I thread has been resolved. I haven't left a comment at AN/I yet. I will do so at some point. It is approaching 11pm at my home. Now is about the time for me to go to sleep so I wouldn't expect any further commentary from me at PA or AN/I. I back part of Launebee's edit - removing the LLM paragraph which is not relevant to PA comes to mind. The whole edit, however, includes things I expressly opposed. Indeed, if we could edit piece by piece we might have resolved at least one or two things by this point. The issue is the wholesale addition and then removal. This doesn't do anything. It moves the article in no direction; a zero sum game. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

You might want to give your opinion here. --Launebee (talk) 17:59, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Don’t hesitate to put the article in B standard, and remove the templates when you want. I guess the only issue you have is the ranking in the lead: you can see in Sciences Po page that people (and I) agreed to put the best ranking in the lead, it seems fair to put in PA article the most significant one (the only one not ranking on English-based publications). --Launebee (talk) 19:52, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry,, I am on holidays for the next five weeks. I wont be back to editing until July. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:48, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It comes to no surprise that again Launebee removed the template. I am kind of tired of this contributor insults and beheaviour.
 * This contributor says that I'm harrassing him/her. In France, harrassement is a crime. Therefore, that contributor says that I'm a criminal. I'm kind of tired to be insulted that way, with the tacit agreement of some admins. With your tactit agreement.
 * You clearly said that you ""did indeed request that the templates stay in the article until we had resolved all of the issues"".So far, nothing as been discussed on the talkpage. Worst of all, everything has been put back on the article
 * So :
 * did you change your mind ; or
 * is this contributor lying when stating that s/he had your tacit approuval to remove the template.
 * XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 14:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I did not wrote you tacitely approved the removal, I said each one of your advice on content have been followed. There is no consensus on advertisement in the article at all so the POV banner is by far sufficient, don’t you think? --Launebee (talk) 21:58, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , I haven't edited Pantheon-Assas or its talk page in the past two weeks. I've rendered no new opinions in that time with the exception of a single comment at AN/I. I am not aware of any admins tacitly or otherwise approving any of what is happening at Pantheon-Assas or Sciences Po. Indeed, the last admin interaction with those pages was to hand out EW blocks to both you and Launebee and to put admin protection on the PA article. The last AN/I thread wasn't visited by a single admin. I suggest that you or consider contacting WP:WikiProject Universities and/or WP:DRN for assistance. I am on holiday and besides very rare comments am unable to be involved in this until early July. I will render an extremely limited opinion on the advert banner here. I am not entirely sure specifically what you want rectified in terms of advert XIII, but, I had personally thought of the rankings in the lede as an advert-y inclusion. I have found at AN/I and Sciences Po that university rankings being placed in the lede is apparently perfectly normal. While I'd go into an argument over NPOV and DUE, it's not my decision to make the community standards. The other section that I note is written advert-y is Reputation though this section is almost entirely quotes and is not written in Wikipedia's voice. There cannot be any kind of resolution to this dispute until each issue is solidly identified. I recommend you start a section on the PA talk page. Quote every advert issue and every neutrality issue you think needs to be rectified and lastly specify which references need to be improved and if possible why. If by the time I am back from my holiday we're still at a standstill then I'll file a case at DRN., you're the main contributor at WP:DRN. Would you mind taking a brief look at Pantheon-Assas University and it's talk page and make any comment or advice in terms of what action would be appropriate. The dispute at that page and at Sciences Po has been litigated at AN/I four times with no resolution and no admin action beyond a short 24hr block and a 0 minute? admin protection applied by Ymblanter. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:34, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * What is the question? If there is a content dispute, I suggest that you ask for a Third Opinion, or that you actually file a request for moderated dispute resolution at WP:DRN.  What is the question?  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * About the lead, I now agree to remove the ranking from it. I just wanted the same community standards to be applied to all universities. --Launebee (talk) 09:02, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I still don't know what the question is, but maybe there isn't a question. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:16, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The question is what's the next step? Like I said, the content dispute has been taken to ANI four separate times. I rendered a 3O in the form of a B-class review and a few comments trying to handle one issue at a time. I was just wondering if you had any ideas or solutions in the mean time as I am on holiday, editing sporadically, and havent dealt with a dispute like this before. It started in May or June last year and hasnt gone anywhere in the mean time. XIII and Launebee havent been able to solve the issue themselves and my involvement hasnt resolved it either. As you can see by this thread and the article history for the past couple weeks. Ill file a formal DRN as soon as I get back from Europe if you think that is the appropriate next move. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:42, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No, no, no. Something is not being stated correctly about the history.  You say that a content dispute has been taken to WP:ANI four times, but ANI is not a content forum, and if something has been taken to ANI four times, there clearly is a conduct issue, even if only the fact that it is being persistently taken to WP:ANI.  What happened at ANI the four times?  Often a dispute that is taken to ANI that is really a content dispute is closed with a statement that it is a content dispute, but what happened the second, third, and fourth times?  If someone keeps taking the dispute to ANI, there is a conduct problem, even if only that it is being made into a content problem.  It certainly is beyond the capability of the dispute resolution noticeboard, which is for lightweight voluntary resolution of content disputes.  If the content dispute has been dragging on this persistently, then either formal mediation may be in order, or it may be time to ask for arbitration of a dispute that is beyond community resolution.  What has happened on the previous trips to ANI?  Either this dispute needs formal mediation, or it needs arbitration.  Robert McClenon (talk) 13:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry. The ANI weren’t about the content, but about, according to me, the aggressive attitude of XIII toward me. I agreed with Mr rnddude opinions (except this reputation section, which was not discussed before). XIII is doing disruptive editing without saying precisely what he thinks is not neutral. If it continues, I will move it to the next step. But I think the discussion with Mr rnddude is constructive and we finish each time to agree on things. --Launebee (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , I've taken a look through AN/I to refresh my memory. The first filing isn't particularly relevant here because it was between Launebee and SalimJah over conduct at Sciences Po (SP). There was no resolution and no admin action taken. This was in September of 2016 and can be found in Archive 934. It was also my first interaction with Launebee. There is a duplicate of the filing in Archive 935 for some reason as well. The second AN/I filing is the first time that XIII was brought to the noticeboard along with SalimJah. This one is more relevant because it involves Pantheon-Assas (PA) as well as SP. It received zero admin attention and was archived around mid-December into Archive 941 without a resolution. The third AN/I filing is the only filing where an admin intervened, the result of this discussion was two 24hr blocks for edit warring and can be found in Archive 952. The very last AN/I filing can be found in Archive 954. It too was archived with no resolution and no admin attention. You'll, I am sure, notice that the threads are not about the content dispute themselves but about conduct issues; harrassment, NLT, personal attacks and edit-warring. That said, all of these are directly tied to the content disputes at the two articles. I am only familiar with the PA dispute because that's the only article talk that I have posted to and also the only article that I've edited. I do not believe that these AN/I filings would have ever been made if the content dispute had been settled. Principally because the interactions themselves would not have taken place. On top of that, no admin has thought the conduct questions to be meritorious enough to even leave a comment, let alone take action. All of the issues at PA center around, in a somewhat broad generalization, the three maintenance templates at the top of the article page. None of these have been resolved since May/June 2016. XIIIfromTOKYO puts the templates back every time Launebee takes them down, and Launebee takes them down everytime that they make a rectifying edit for some of the content. E.g. I suggested that we remove LLM guide and the material used from LLM guide as an unsuitable source. Launebee removed the LLM citation and material, made a few other changes that we'd discussed as well, and took down one of the templates too. XIIIfromTOKYO reverted the edit, reinstating the template, removing the new material and reinstated the LLM material. So you think it's time for RFM or RFAR? I wouldn't have thought ARBCOM would give this a second glance. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I just want to point out that I rarely removed all the banners. I just disagree on putting the advert banner without consensus on that, I think that the neutrality dispute banner is sufficient., since there is a dispute and not a consensus at all on advertisement, since Mr rnddude rather agree with me (we can continue the discussion on some points of course), don’t you think the POV banner is sufficient? If yes, could you erase the other bannner yourself? --Launebee (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

University of Paris Issues
I have taken an initial look at the history of these ANI filings. I see that all of the filings have to do with the University of Paris and its schools. I also see that they seem to have to do with warring over NPOV tagging, and, in my opinion, quarrels over tagging are not constructive, and are a distraction from whatever the real issues are. The purpose of tags is to call attention to the fact that an article needs to be improved. The issue should always only be how to improve the article, not whether to tag the article. The fact that there have been multiple filings that seem to have been about tagging implies that editors are not trying to work together. As you say, none of the issues have been resolved since May/June 2016, a year; that in itself is problematic. I agree that the ANI filings would not have happened if there weren't content issues compounded by conduct issues. What I don't know, not having been involved, is whether the parties are sufficiently willing to try to resolve the content issues that formal mediation is worth trying, or whether the stubbornness and incivility are such that the conduct issues must be addressed first. If the editors are willing to work with a mediator on the content issues, then it always better to address the content issues in the hope that they will obviate the conduct issues. However, sometimes one or more editors are part of the problem and won't work with a mediator, or will undermine mediation. I find the mention of personal attacks troublesome, and the mention of legal threats even more troublesome. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

My thought, unfortunately, is that if a subject has been taken to ANI four times, and three times it wasn't obvious what the problem was, so that it was archived without action (in one case there were short blocks), that the problem is one that requires an evidentiary approach, which is what ArbCom does, because the conduct issues are preventing the content issues from being resolved, and the ArbCom needs to determine how to break the conduct cycle by topic-bans or bans. So I would actually suggest filing a Request for Arbitration, pointing out that there have been four previous inconclusive ANI filings, and that the problem has not been solved for a year. Maybe ArbCom will take the case; I would ask them to take the case. If ArbCom doesn't take the case, the alternative is formal mediation, with all of the parties understanding that, in accordance with the mediation policy, any editor who disrupts the mediation should be blocked and probably topic-banned. I am hesitant to recommend mediation, only because I am concerned that mediation is likely to fail, and that it will then be necessary to go back to WP:ANI or ArbCom. So that is my recommendation, to request arbitration, because I think that formal fact-finding of who is at fault, and so needs to be topic-banned, is needed. Unfortunately, it looks like the sort of trouble area for which arbitration is necessary. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * My problem is that I don’t even know where exactly XIII thinks there is advertisement.
 * Regarding legal threats, there clearly was not from my part, and Mr rnddude clearly told him so, but XIII went saying everywhere that I did some to him anyway.
 * In the SP page, I think things are advancing since Robminchin got involved. In PA the same since Mr rnddude got involved.
 * Wouldn’t first XIII saying exactly what he does not like (instead of calling me things) and then a request for comment on these be a good first step. Because he is pretty much trying to erase everything I write, and arbitration would be difficult since the dispute itself is not clear? I just wanted to wait for Mr rnddude, who knows about the article since we discussed it quite a lot in the talk page, to get back from holidays.
 * --Launebee (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No, no, no. Are you trying to get me into a conflict about tagging, about the addition or removal of templates?  That is petty.  Did you read my comments below?  The purpose of maintenance templates is to identify a need for the improvement of an article.  If there is agreement that an article needs tagging with maintenance templates, it is trivial to fight over which templates.  Either discuss how to improve the article, or leave the article alone, but stop quarreling about whether to use one template or multiple templates.  Either discuss how to improve the article, or request formal mediation to improve the article, or conclude that the article can't be improved until some of the disruptive editors are banned, in which case you should go to WP:ANI a fifth time, or go to ArbCom.  It looks to me as though no one really wants to improve the article, only to assign blame, in which case ArbCom is the way to go, to topic-ban everyone and then request new editors.  Alternatively, act constructive and stop quarreling about how many templates.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:55, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Please not that I clearly improved the article with Mr rnddude. We discussed a lot, and I changed the article a lot according to what we agreed. On the contrary, as Mr rnddude noted, XIII only "contribution" was to revert my edits and put templates. By the way, "PDD" means "Page de discussion" = talk page. But if you want the ad template to stay the time someone else says the article is ok, ok. --Launebee (talk) 07:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

ANI
Thanks. Jumping into the middle of that shambles was a serious error in judgment on my part. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:24, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , I should have RfPP'ed. If they show up and revert or what have you, then I'll drop a line on both AN and RfPP to request a semi-protect. It beggars belief that not one person thought of this simple solution to a dynamic IP hopping problem. It only needs to be in effect for a few hours to a day at most. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry for not doing the best job of keeping a cool head. I should have stayed away from that talk page. SL93 (talk) 03:33, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's ok . I can't say with any confidence that the person currently using the IP would be the same person that was using it two months ago. They deny it being their edit, that doesn't give them a right to swing charges round on you. The attacks on you were repetitive, maliciously false, and with express intention to disreputed you by labelling you as a racist. Your responses were fully understandable. Many of us have our eyes on the page, one of us will eventually act accordingly. Happy Editing, :) Mr rnddude (talk) 03:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Does the most recent revert necessitate an appeal to RFPP?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , I have a concern that this will spread like wildfire from page to page now. I don't think RfPP will take it as sufficiently demonstrative of requiring edit protection. Maybe if we take this in conjunction with the AN filing. I don't know. I'll add the page to my watchlist and monitor. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Deletion following move
When you move a page from an incorrect title to the correct title, please don't tag the problem-title redirect for R3 speedy deletion. The advice you were given at WP:ANI is outright wrong: WP:R3 (the criterion's official text) specifically says "This criterion does not apply to redirects created as a result of a page move" unless the wrong-title page were created recently. This has a twofold reason: if someone made the typo when creating the page (or when moving the page to a new title, as was the case with The State Museum of the History of St. Petersburg), it's clearly not implausible, and because creating linkrot from long-established titles is basically always a bad idea unless the title is outright bad, e.g. it's an attack on someone. Nyttend (talk) 00:37, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for the information. I hadn't realized until after I'd posted that it wasn't brand new. I didn't know that R3 wasn't applicable to page moves and it was deleted as an R3 by RHaworth. Seems pointless to restore it to me, but, if you think anybody will ever use it. There is the St. Peterburg redirect, so I s'pose it's plausible. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh ... and um ... I wasn't given the advice ... I gave the advice. Whoops. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:55, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, and sorry for misreading the situation; I wondered why a user with six talk archives was unfamiliar with pagemoves, but sometimes we just don't have reason to learn something basic until after we've been around a long time :-) The basic issue for restoring this specific redirect is the page's long history at this title — people have had nearly five years to create off-wiki links to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_State_Museum_of_the_History_of_St._Peterburg, and as several pages have links to the "Peterburg" spelling in several of their current revisions, unfixable links appear in lots and lots of old revisions, e.g., , and ; deleting the redirect hurts the usefulness of these pages.  Nyttend (talk) 01:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see . That's why you brought up linkrot. Old revisions, and also, for the many mirror sites of Wikipedia that exist. Thanks again. Maybe you should explain to mramoeba as well, just so that I don't screw that up any further. Heh. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I'm particularly concerned about archive.org, since if I remember rightly they delete archives of a page once they're told not to index it, and I think I've seen somewhere that deleted pages are automatically marked for noindex somehow.  I thought of advising Mramoeba, but I feared that it would make you look bad to say "You were told the wrong thing" — but since you suggested it, I did my best to explain the situation without complaining about you.  Nyttend (talk) 01:48, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

 * Thanks for your insightful comments at Talk:Bengal famine of 1943 Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , no problem. Glad my comments were helpful. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Re:
Just so you know, I read and appreciated pretty much everything you said in your reply to me on Softlavender's talk page. When I checked back in to thank you for it, though, I noticed you had butchered the most important part of it with this nonsense. I thought your comment worked a lot better with your just dryly stating that you had abused your admin privileges and leaving it to the reader to figure out how ridiculous that was. For shame. :P Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 04:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Fair Use in Australia campaign update
I'm writing you this followup message, as you took the time to vote in support of a Wikipedia banner campaign for the introduction of Fair Use in Australia.

After much planning and coordination with the WMF, Australian Digital Alliance, and Electronic Frontiers Australia, as of Monday the banner-campaign is active on English Wikipedia to a portion of logged-out readers in Australia (technical details). The banners direct people to this page on Meta: FairCopyrightOz. That page, alongside lots of information, further directs people towards the campaign website faircopyright.org.au where Australians are invited to write to their local MP to express support of Fair Use. If you are interested in supporting this campaign, please, send a letter yourself using the template letter provided at that link.

Furthermore, and with the support of the ADA & EFA, we have received fantastic media coverage - with article "Fair Use: Wikipedia targets Australians in bid to change the law" appearing on page 2 of the Sydney Morning Herald and page 10 of the Melbourne Age on Monday's edition. It was for a time the 3rd most read article the Fairfax website, and Fair Use was "trending" on Twitter in Australia. We are running the account @FairCopyrightOz on twitter, and we are tracking other press-mentions on the talkpage on Meta.

Today, day 2, we published a detailed post about the campaign on the Wikimedia Blog, ran an "Ask Me Anything" Q&A session on the Australia page in Reddit, and [by happy coincidence of timing] the article History of fair use proposals in Australia appeared on the en.wp mainpage as a Did You Know. [The creation of that "history of..." article was a specific request arising from in the community consultation in which you voted].

And, most importantly, in a little more than a day nearly 800 letters to MPs have been sent encouraging them to support the Productivity Commission's recommendation to adopt Fair Use in Australia. I urge you - please add your own message.


 * Sincerely, Wittylama 16:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussing your comment on Brownheaded ash sawflly talk page
Here.

I see your comments about me above. So, just to be clear, Wikipedia doesn't frown upon gratuitous posting of racist terms unrelated to article content on article talk pages? I doubt you're correct about this. Article talk pages are for discussing articles, not other users. --2600:387:6:805:0:0:0:B1 (talk) 15:54, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That gratuitous racist comment was originally posted from your IP address. SL93 made a note of that in their response to you. Now, you are not the person who posted the comment in the article originally, and it would normally run afoul of civil to attack you with it. Unfortunately, you then took the issue to AN and repeatedly called SL93 a racist. Pot meet kettle. Not the right response. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:04, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I see racist remarks made all over the web. I have never copied one to paste and spread it elsewhere to attack the person saying it. SL93 pasted the actual racist remark, not a link to it, on an article talk page. Not on a user talk page. I think I called it well about the type of person who pastes racial slurs. --2600:387:6:805:0:0:0:B1 (talk) 19:44, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

AN/I
As you participated in Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive957, you may be interested in Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 03:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

RfA

 * have had far too many people to thank, something over 300 of us. You're welcome in any case though. Good luck adminning at AfD and in general. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I have now thanked everyone, so now I need to study all of the administrator's instructions. Whew! Cullen328  Let's discuss it  01:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC)