User talk:OliverTwisted/Archive 4

Prod vs. CSD Amit mehra
Hello. I'm used to seeing you beat me to the save page button during RC patrol and generally agree with your assessments, but I just noticed something. On the "Amit mehra" article (I'm not linking it because I know it will be deleted), it was tagged with a prod tag which anyone,even the author is allowed to remove. It is CSD tags that article authors are not supposed to remove. The author is acting within policy by removing the prod tag. However, the article probably qualifies for CSD under WP:CSD. 152.16.59.102 (talk) 08:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That guideline is supposed to be used for authors who in good faith improve an article, and remove the cause for concern. In this case the subject of the article is also the author of the article, and he has removed another editors PROD, as well as the "second" of the prod which I added. He has not given any explanation in the edit summaries, nor has he responded to any communication on his talk page. Repeated removal of any maintenance templates without an edit summary should be discouraged. As to whether it falls under CSD or PROD, it's a toss up.-- Oliver  Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 08:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Upon checking the history of the article, I can see the point you were trying to make before I started lecturing you. The edit summary for one of my rollbacks did read "CSD" instead of "PROD". I did intend to issue the warning regarding repeated removal of maintenance templates without fixing the problem or providing edit summaries, but I should have been more specific with the wording. I've since gone back and clarified the warning to the author of the article. Thanks for keeping me honest. -- Oliver  Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 09:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Amit mehra
hi. One of the articles I submitted is not about me. I may have wrongly tagged it as I am new to this. Kindly do not delete it. Also the only place it has been published before is a MSN contribute page. So what do i do? —Precedingunsigned comment added by Amitmehra13 (talk •contribs) 09:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the article is not structured to appear on Wikipedia. It seems to be an essay, not a biography of a living person. Subjects of these articles must meet the guidelines for notability, as listed here: WP:N, WP:BIO. In addition, once notability has been established, reliable sources have to be provided which meet the guidelines as listed here: WP:RS and WP:V. For your convenience, I will install some additional links on your userpage, to make it easier for you to edit on Wikipedia. Best regards on your future edits.-- Oliver  Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 09:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As it turns out, the article was also a direct copy/paste from the article we discussed which appeared on the userpages of MSN. You mentioned in one of your edit summaries that you wrote the article. This would not necessarily mean then, that there was a copyright violation (despite any notices you received), but the article was not structured to appear on Wikipedia. Please take some time to read the links installed on your user talk page, as they will help you avoid these mistakes on your next article. Best regards. -- Oliver  Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 10:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Tenthers
Hi, thanks for your message of dialogue on this issue. This is an interesting paradox that you noted. Many people in official positions in government can and do exercise power with the stated end to weaken the institution. Sometimes they do this without stating so. This happens not just on the right but also on the left. On the last count, witness Mikhail Gorbachev. Some might call this working to undermine "the system," others might call this working towards change-from-within.Dogru144 (talk) 13:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a double sided paradox, as if they don't state it, and a reliable third party source doesn't state it, then we have to forego it in an independent, objective analysis of the material. I don't disagree with your statements, but the word "all" *always* requires a reference. I would seriously consider choosing a qualifying word, because I doubt you will find a source willing to go out on that kind of limb that would be considered objective. Otherwise, I think the article is completely on target, and good job! -- Oliver  Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 13:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * PS, on your note about "not all tenthers." Within sets of people ascribing to particular beliefs, there are always people that are not absolutists, than have a range positions, some deviating from their main identification as liberal or conservative. I was citing particular people that are noted in the literature as prime examples of tenthers.Dogru144 (talk) 13:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As you've probably noticed, the "literature" you mention does not seem to be considered objective, as another editor has already tagged the article. You are debating a principle of political philosophy, not adherance to Wikipedia guidelines regarding WP:V. I have no desire to make the determination of who is an "absolutist" or who is not, and I'm not sure that should be your goal either. That's one reason to avoid using the word "all," as it is *always* the easiest statement to disprove, needing only a single example to make it unverifiable and thus, subject to deletion. It's not philosophy, it's grammar. Cheers. -- Oliver  Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 13:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As you'll see from my latest edit, I've picked up some "literature" from the tenther perspective (their POV). I'd welcome your contributions of POV writings of course, as well.  Additionally, how about we work out some general adjective in place of "all."  I was not trying to throw hot words at people with "absolutist".  Maybe another word should be "literal."  My point is that there is a range.  e.g., among liberal Democrats Barbara Boxer would be the literal/absolutist example, among conservative Republicans Tom Coburn would be the literal/absolutist.Dogru144 (talk) 14:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The first statement is definitely more accurate now. Also, just as a side note, I wasn't trying to enter into a political debate with you, I was only trying to stress the importance of not using indefensible words (all, always, none, etc) in articles on Wikipedia, regardless of the topic. But again, all this aside, I think the article turned out great. ;o) -- Oliver  Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 22:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

look (Dallas Lovato)
Why you think you can warn someone, I have no idea. Just maybe you are in the wrong. I will discuss it with you though.Completelyoverit (talk) 07:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be because the article does not meet guidelines for notability, and was deleted as the result of an AfD discussion less than a week ago. If you would spend some time reading the endless list of warnings on your user talk page, you would have a much easier time editing on Wikipedia. -- Oliver  Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 07:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I was about to show there is no consensus. Furthermore, if we go around and delete every perceived minor character, there will be quite a ruckus. I submit that people don't like Dallas for some reason and that is why they keep this up.Completelyoverit (talk) 08:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Less than five "supposedly qualified" editors even contributed to the discussion also. It was ignored that there was an effort to show notability and to provide references. Completelyoverit (talk) 08:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read the notices on your talk page. Everyone understands what it is you are trying to do, simply by reading this: and this:. As you can see, the decision on the AfD was not "no consensus," as you stated, but rather it was unanimous to "delete". I had no idea of the history of the article, until I installed the warning on your talkpage, therefore I was not biased in nominating the article for deletion. It simply does not meet the notability guidelines, as listed here: WP:BIO or WP:ACTOR. -- Oliver  Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 08:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Why do you care so much? Unanimous with less than four people? With others not allowed to contribute to the discussion? Give it a rest for a while as I am too busy to deal with this further now. Notability?? Are you going to search the tens of thousands of pages with actors, singers, and whoever else and find who you can delete? Take a break.Completelyoverit (talk) 08:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you can't take the time to read the information that has been provided to you by at least a dozen other editors on your talkpage, I don't have the time to keep repeating it. The artist is not notable. All new articles are checked for adherance to guidelines. I just happened to get... lucky... with this one. No one deliberately targeted Dallas Lovato, the artist is just not notable yet. -- Oliver  Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 08:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * you do what you want! I find you to be ridiculous. for one thing, you have no idea what is going on here. truly you are twisted! for another I don't have to explain it to you. you are the meddler here. I plan to take action to reverse most of what you have been doing as well. go create something for that too. be gone! Completelyoverit(talk) 11:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Threats seem to suit you. It's a good thing most of us "incompetent idiots" have been entrusted with "rollback rights," so that we can erase all vandalism to articles with one click of the mouse. It's also a really good thing that every vicious, personal and tasteless comment you have made on Wikipedia directed at dozens of editors, in the two weeks that you've been on here, has been recorded for everyone to review, at their leisure, including the fact that you've already been blocked once. So, you can launch into a completely counter-productive vendetta against everyone on Wikipedia, or you can stop... for just ten minutes... to read the feedback you have been given on your user talkpage, including the dozen warnings which you deleted, but are still present in your user talk page history, for experienced editors to review during these discussions. You bluster around like there is a huge conspiracy against you, but everyone knows it is just a temper tantrum. There is no conspiracy. There is only a minor actress who has not yet earned enough critical recognition to merit an article on Wikipedia (and I stress the word "yet"), and one very angry editor who can't seem to communicate with anyone without resorting to threats and personal attacks. If you wanted to be treated with respect, then try showing some.-- Oliver  Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 11:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Chicken Little, I HAVE been on Wikipedia quite possibly longer than you have been out of high school. there is a reason most people say Wikipedia is in trouble. people like you worried about vandals that are not even there. I am not minimizing the fact that there are a few select crazy groups. but in the name of "vandal-proofing" you and others are demolishing one of the best things that has been on the Net. thankfully I am taking actions to prevent that. seriously, I have no time today for more of your nonsense. Completelyoverit (talk) 11:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Nookii
Hello OliverTwisted, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Nookii has been removed. It was removed by Hurrahhurray with the following edit summary '(no edit summary)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Hurrahhurray before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you,SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Tony Negus
Thanks for fixing the title capitals typo - you just beat me too it. Ronnam (talk) 07:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Prof Afrikadzata Deku, Docteur d'Etat, PhD
right as I was doing it... :) good job. Sephiroth storm (talk) 06:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The "Wahhabi" Myth
Hi, the three PRODs have been deleted from The "Wahhabi" Myth (yours was the first) by the article's author and he wishes to start a discussion on the talk page. Over to you to decide what to do. Thanks,  Esowteric + Talk  16:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This article is actually an attempt by the author to redress what he sees as gross inaccuracies and bias in theWahhabi article. Please see the Myth talk page and also the Wahhabi talk page to gauge the mess. Wahhabi really needs a subject expert who can also mediate. Cheers,  Esowteric + Talk  16:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Dawud has now gone back to deleting content from Wahhabi. See diff  Esowteric + Talk  16:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. I weighed in on the AfD, with a "merge" or "delete" suggestion. I can understand an editor's frustration with not being able to introduce an opposing viewpoint on an article, but deliberately bypassing the community in order to present that information seems to not be the right course of action. In addition, the article as it stands is really just a synthesis of informatoin pulled to support a particular viewpoint, despite the assertions of the author on the article's talk page. I agree with your assessment that the matter is in need of the attention of an expert, which unfortunately, is not me. Best regards. -- Oliver  Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 00:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Jeffrey Dale Gregory
FYI - there is nothing that precludes adding a CSD tag after nominating an article for AfD as long as the article meets the criteria for CSD. I have gone ahead and reinstated the CSD tag. The article fails to meet WP:NOTE orWP:BIO.  ttonyb (talk) 05:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That is true, however the first line of the template installed on CSD nominated articles, as well as the directions regarding Speedy Deletions (WP:SPEEDY), both note that the Speedy Deletion process is for when there is "no indication that the subject may meet guidelines for notability." Someone who is currently running for congress would not seem to fall into the "no indication of notability" category. I would be very surprised if another editor or admin does not also remove the CSD tag. I don't mean to always cross swords with you on deletions, but we seem to patrol at the same time of day/night. Best regards. -- Oliver  Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 06:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with OliverTwisted on this issue. How is claiming to run for Congress not a claim of notability?   —Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 06:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * First of I do not see this or anything else we have been involved in as a crossing of swords. I have seen your work and respect your additions, deletions, and edits.  Candidacy for a public office generally is not seen as an assertion of notability.  By the article's own admission, "He has yet to win the parties nomination...," and has only announced his intention to run.  Thanks for the message and my best to you.   ttonyb  (talk) 06:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Jeff G., anyone can run for office or announce their intention to run. If he had indicated support by his party or amassed a substantial war chest, then I would agree with you.  I just don't see it here.  With that said, there will be some that do not agree with my assessment.  If the CSD is removed by someone else, so be it, the article will most likely fail the AfD.  My best to you.   ttonyb  (talk) 06:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Tony, thanks for answering at Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Dale Gregory. Item #3 OF WP:POLITICIANhas changed my position on this issue to agree with yours.  — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 06:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * My pleasure, enjoy the evening/day.  ttonyb  (talk) 07:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Robert Mayday
You should have googled harder and have noticed the real name. I have closed the AFD and redirected to the proper page.-- Mix well ! Talk 21:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your interest in the topic. Not to be a poopyhead, but I disagree with your assessment. I'm not responsible for the subject of the article being mangled and mis-spelled. I did my job, and you did your job, and Wikipedia is better for it. Regards. -- Oliver  Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 22:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Haha Oliver, you are bitey! What I mean is, you bit into this thing and are not letting go. I'm still inclined to think that a half a sentence might be enough, but you are displaying great economy and I recommend you for it. Of course, I could also say that it's time to maybe play a game of scrabble or walk the dog. Be good, and when you're on the lam, don't forget to check them for spare keys. Drmies (talk) 05:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm still trying to figure out where I know this guy from, as I used to live in NW suburban Chicago, and we're about the same age... and he really, REALLY looks familiar. -- Oliver  Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 05:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Supertouch here...
Regarding your message: apart from my addition of the title of the book, I simply tried to restructure the The "Wahhabi" Myth page without adding any new info. The references (apart from the book) were not my own, I simply formated them as references.
 * What about: this edit ?-- Oliver  Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 12:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

This was inserted before I became involved in editing this page. I have cut and pasted this from the edit history:

Revision as of 17:25, September 20, 2009

The "Wahhabi" Myth is a huge phenomina within the media has occurred where terrorist ideologies have been attributed to Saudi Arabia and the Salafi movement (Derogatarily referred to as "Wahhabism).[citation needed] I wish to analyse this and using evidence froma range of notable sources, PROVE that this is both factually inaccurate and propaganda from various sects within Islam that oppose the Salafi beliefs. To start with, the myth that Saudi Arabia is sponsering Al Qaeda is contradictory to the fact that Al qeda has waged a war against Saudi Arabia http://wire.antiwar.com/2009/09/13/brother-of-bin-laden-dies-in-saudi-arabia/ An al qeda operative recently tried to kill a prince of the saudi royal family http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8229581.stm There is much evidence that suggests the "wahhabi" stigma is nothing but a falacy, and much evidence can be generated to prove that this is nothing more than propaganda.[citation needed] References

My first edit was not until September 22 as is evidenced on the edit history page as well. I reiterate: apart from the addition of the book title and info I simply cleaned up the language, spelling and format.Supertouch(talk) 13:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how much the page was cleaned up... It doesn't much matter at this point, the article has a day left on the AfD discussion before being deleted. -- Oliver  Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 13:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Marcy Renee Conrad
Yeah, thanks. I thought it showed some potential- great job expanding and improving it! The DominatorTalkEdits16:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

IS TODAY'S YOUTH CONFIDENT OR CONFUSED
..would you agree to changing this to a speedy delete? I think it's complete junk, frankly. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 06:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Go for it, I won't contest it. -- Oliver  Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 06:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

What cleanup do you think it needs? Looked a nice little stub to me. PamD (talk) 07:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

On a casual scan, there are several punctuation errors in the first few sentences, as well as a few other copyedit issues. If you are not familiar withWP:STYLE, don't worry. Someone who enjoys coyedit work will come by to fix it shortly. If you are interested in finishing the article, please note one section from the article: "Tseten Dolma (Tibetan:ཚེ་བརྟན་སྒྲོལ་མ།; Tibetan pinyin:Tseitain Zhoima; Wylie:tshe brtan sgrol ma; Chinese:才旦卓玛) is a Tibetan soprano. Born to a serf family in August 1 1937 in Shigatse, She was influenced by the Tibetan folk music when she was very young. In 1956, she first performed on stage. In 1958 she joined Shanghai Conservatory of Music，learning from professor Wang Pinsu. Since the 1960's, she served as the chairman of the Tibet Branch of the Chinese Musicians' Association, director and vice-chairman of CMA, deputy secretary of Bureau of Cultural Affairs of Tibet Autonomous Regional.[1].

In each case, there is a punctuation issue, and/or some syntax issues. Best regards. --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 07:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Brokencyde and Crunkcore
I didn't set out to find bad reviews on Brokencyde! I was initially trying to find references in reliable sources to bolster Crunkcore, as sources are pretty lacking. All I could find was reviews of Brokencyde, so I figured I'd add them. I can see why John McDonnell's comment isn't needed, even though it was in the Guardian music blog, but I thought the quote given to mtv.com by Alex Gaskarth was pretty interesting. It suggested by Brokencyde and other crunkcore bands get success despite being universally panned by music critics, which is an angle not covered by the article at the moment. Fences &amp;  Windows  15:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh I have no doubt about the "setting out to find bad reviews" part. There are no other kinds of reviews for this band, believe me I've looked. But if all reviews are bad, and the band has had only 1 major release, is it really necessary to have more than 5 or 6 sources that basically say the same thing? The comment made to mtv.com basically said "kids grow up watching Disney pop, and they hear the F word, and think the band is punk rock." This wouldn't seem to lend credibility to the band being considered "crunkcore." Is this comment really encyclopedic information? If you feel that it is, I won't fight you on re-installing the info. If you wouldn't mind, however, could you add it to the 2nd paragraph of critical reviews, rather than at the end. I really think the comments by the LA Times are a great close to the section. Best regards. -- Oliver  Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 23:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I may add it back, I'm undecided. I've cut Crunkcore back to its bare bones; do you know of any sources to build it up? Fences  &amp;  Windows  04:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Headfucking
replied here

Thanks, and no hard feelings ;) --Arkelweis (talk) 10:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Boticca
I find it very rude of your team to delete my page continuously. It is a notable organisation and it is credible yet I am being contradicted and the page gets deleted. Highly frustrating. Allowfellow (talk) 03:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you are facing frustration. I noticed that the welcoming committee had neglected to provide you with information which is normally shared with new members. I have installed some helpful links on your user talk page. You will want to read the article on notability WP:N, and specifically in regards to what sources must be provided to establish notability, WP:COMPANY. Surely you can understand that not every company will be able to meet the guidelines for notability, and that these guidelines had to be established to allow for an objective evaluation by multiple editors. As you see, at least 3 different editors have noted that the article does not yet meet the guidelines for inclusion. Once these guidelines are met, you can re-submit your article for consideration, after contacting any of the editors who have left you messages on your talk page, in order to have the article name unprotected. In the meantime, I'd like to apologize on behalf of Wikipedia that you were not given easier access to these guidelines upon registration. Best regards on your future edits. -- Oliver  Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 03:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Block template
(Seen at Graeme Bartlett's talk page) "Indefinate" does not mean "forever", it means that no time has been set. In practice this generally means "at least a year" but may be shorter. An indef blocked editor may appeal the block in the usual way where the block will be reviewed by an admin and the block lifted or maintained. Mjroots (talk) 10:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I was just making a funny, and the template I was alluding to is this one, at the bottom of the page:. Cheers. -- Oliver  Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 10:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Fake or Real
Please accept my apologies. I CSD'd the damned thing in error. Crafty (talk) 08:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hack forums
I didn't vandalise the page. I corrected it. An I am not 'Continuously' vandalising. I am sorry if I upset you but pleasedont give me crap. I am helping and dont want to be penalised for every single change.04wilsonm (talk) 17:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You've received warnings from other editors and automated bots, in addition to myself. Your user talk page is a roadmap of warnings. It might be helpful to read those warnings, rather than lashing out at the editors who are just doing their jobs. This edit to Barack Obama was not helpful, and was reverted. . You attempted to protect a page without explanation, and without admin authority here:, which thankfully you then removed. You created a page which does not comply with Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion: Hack forums. This is what resulted in your warnings, many of which are done by automated bots. I sincerely suggest you take a few moments to read the information that has been provided to you, if you wish to avoid further warnings. While I do not doubt that you had good intentions in mind, and probably do not view these edits as vandalism, they are indeed disruptive. -- Oliver  Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 23:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I am sorry if my edits caused any upset. I will fully consult the wikipedia guidelines before making any edits again. 04wilsonm (talk) 16:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Sameera Aziz
That wasn't a non-notable DB tag, it was a spam tag. It does nothing but promote some entity and would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 04:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, in the spirit of "SOFIXIT", I've removed that concern. -- Oliver  Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 04:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Utilisateur:Beeper/Editcounter
Why MY user subpage was deleted. I use it for my stats, so please could you restore it? Beeper (talk) 04:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Virtual novel
Hullo, I have added a few links to the Virtual novel page and so taken out the Orphan tag on it. Hopefully a few more curious souls will find their way to it now. I feel affection for pages I have created and for all I know you may have been the only reader the page has had so far, which makes me a little sad. I will also try and improve the page more in the future. regards

PS A bit baffled by your impressive User page. I hope that this is right place to have left this message if not apologies. Am a bit of a duffer on the subtleties of Wiki netiquette.  SmokeyTheCat   •TALK•  17:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. I'll put it on my list of projects to monitor. This is the right place for comments, and you did fine. Best regards.  O liver  T wisted (Talk) (Stuff)  00:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Converted to PROD: Animal crossing alfonso
Hello OliverTwisted, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I have changed a page you tagged (Animal crossing alfonso) from being tagged for speedy deletion to being tagged for proposed deletion. The speedy deletion criteria are very narrow to protect the encyclopedia, and do not fit the page in question. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Thanks again! decltype (talk) 12:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Tiny Lotus sub page or stub
The term tiny lotus has many uses and meanings. to simply 'redirect to 'foot binding' is incomplete. please let me make a page with 6 or so internal link and a dozen external. please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinyoflotus (talk • contribs) 02:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please view the guidelines for page creation, here: WP:LOP. Best regards. --  O liver  T wisted (Talk) (Stuff) 02:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

HyunA
hey man made page for others to edit    dont know much about this girl so i hoped some korean ppl would edit and add...but i know she needs a page Thomasstockton1985 (talk) 04:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * At the point when this musical artist meets guidelines for inclusion on Wikipedia, as expressed here: WP:MUSICBIO, the article may be able to be re-created, using proper references as expressed here: WP:RS. Best regards. --  O liver  T wisted (Talk) (Stuff) 04:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree to deletion
Hi there! I replyed to your deletion request Articles for deletion/Hiroyoshi Ohashi imars (talk) 13:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The AfD will give you a week to try to flesh out the sources. I'm not a botany expert, but most of the articles I've seen about botanists have usually had sources to establish notability, rather than being created from a database listing. Whatever additional information you can find, please feel free to add it to the article during the discussion. Also, thanks for taking the time to communicate. ;o) --  O liver  T wisted (Talk) (Stuff)  14:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Marcus Ummidius Quadratus Annianus
I just want to apology, if I have caused any inconveniences regarding the sources about the above named article. I had just made a small mistake regarding a secondary source about Marcus Aurelius in the article. I totally forgot to log in and I changed the source regarding Marcus Aurelius’ source book.

It was just an honest small mistake. I am at the moment, doing many articles for Wikipedia and sometimes when I am in Wikipedia, I forget to log in. Then I realize, I have to log in to add or update articles.

All the sources I have mentioned on Wikipedia regarding the above named article are reliable sources and all the information in the article is correct. If you want, you can put footnotes in the article.

Again my apologies for any inconveniences caused.

Anriz.
 * Thanks for the message. No apologies are necessary. My concern was that if you did not intend on formatting the footnotes, or the bare URLs in the Ref Sec, that the maintenance templates not be removed until those tasks were completed by another editor. Some editors can run lists of "articles needing footnotes" or "articles needing references" and then help to complete articles that might otherwise never be completed. This is done by "searching" for the maintenance templates installed on articles. If they are removed, the article might get "lost" and never be improved.


 * Also, all quotations in any article should have a footnote by the authoring editor, otherwise it becomes quite a challenge to get access to the sources used for the articles to search for a single quotation. Lastly, for your future reference, I formatted one of the references from its bare URL state to something slightly more "wikified". You can also click on the blue links in the templates themselves (re-installed on the article) to get hints on how to format sources even more completely than my "quickie edit."


 * Formatting aside, I especially appreciate editors like yourself who contribute good, solid content to Wikipedia. There are not nearly enough of us, and I didn't mean to imply that your contributions were not of the highest caliber. Part of "New Page Patrol" is tagging articles as they are introduced to Wikipedia, to make sure we can "come back to them" later. There are plenty of editors who like to "clean up" articles, we just have to make the articles easy to find. Best regards on your future edits. --  O liver  T wisted (Talk) (Stuff) 08:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Redirects for Discussion: Huang An
I have removed the dated PROD template from Huang An and listed the page at Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 January 22. Your opinions on deletion are welcome there. Thanks, Cnilep (talk) 00:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help. I haven't worked much with redirects, and I probably should have taken the time to read up on the procedures for deleting one. I was actually doing research on Chinese legends when I came across it, and realized it had been installed as a vanity redirect. Best regards. --  O liver  T wisted (Talk) (Stuff) 03:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I have just converted the redirect into a disambiguation page with three blue links and two redlinks. The article can still be written at Huang An with the various entries of the dab page in a "See also" section, but I'd recommend writing the article with a disambiguated name, like Huang An (Chinese immortal) as I've seen other uses of the name pop up in various Google searches. The immortal's name might be currently the primary use of "Huang An", but that may change in a few years. Oh the redirect doesn't appear to be one of vanity (unless the novelist created the redirect himself, it's not vanity, for Huang Yi's more "familiar" pen name is Huang An).147.70.242.54 (talk) 18:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Perfect! Couldn't have asked for a better solution. --  O liver  T wisted (Talk) (Stuff) 03:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Jesse Lauter
Hi - fyi, the COI/autobio author of Jesse Lauter just blanked the page and I have tagged as db-author. I wanted to give you a heads-up because you had done so much cleanup work on it, so feel free to undo his blanking if you feel the article should stay. Thanks. 7 08:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.  MBisanz  talk 02:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up! I will try to use this new power wisely! ;0) --  O liver  T wisted (Talk) (Stuff) 04:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:AIV
Please take the Studio 54 vandal to WP:AIV. You have all the details. Page protection may be in order after seeing the constant battle for months. --mboverload @ 01:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to try to avoid being thwarted (due to backlog) this time... I've installed a level 4 warning (a more recent one). The user will try again, probably tonight. Once they do, I will have enough for an admin block, even if I end up with the most timid admin online at the time. Thanks again for helping me end this. --  O liver  T wisted (Talk) (Stuff) 01:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops, I meant to take it to WP:AN/I if you can't get a permanent fix. Didn't mean AIV. --mboverload @ 05:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The user's been blocked for a week. He'll be back, and then I may have to resort to WP:AN/I. I try to stay away from that board, the way I would avoid a dreaded skin disease... --  O liver  T wisted (Talk) (Stuff) 10:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Studio 54
Well, the situation has been partially settled. It's my own fault, for being a jerk, but after 8 months I was ready for some closure on this incident regarding one vandal who was consuming virtually all of the time I have available to devote to Wikipedia. Perhaps I should have not taken my frustration out in such a visible way... but the vandalism board needs to be viewed for what it is, a place to report vandalism, rather than editors being treated as if they are tattling to the teacher.

I tried doing everything by the guidelines... the templates, the warnings, the explanations, the CSD board, the AFD board, the vandalism board. The user was blocked once, blocked twice. The user, however, has a single purpose, whether right or wrong, and that is to convince the world that Billy Smith changed his name to Billy Amato, that he owned Studio 54, that he launched the career of Madonna, among other claims I won't address here... all without one single reliable source. He may be completely on target, his information may be valid, but he will not provide a source, he will not communicate with anyone about the situation, he removes all warnings using an alternate account, and continues on with the dogged determination of someone who will not be deterred by a simple warning or a simple block, and he does this for 8 consecutive months... and though I have demonstrated this to various admins at various times, over and over... people helpfully point out that it "has" to be on this board, or that board, or the other board... or it has to be at this time, or that time, or another time. I had already been to all those boards, and I don't have the time to check Wikipedia every hour, so that my reports aren't "stale."

The time had come, (the walrus said) to work on other things. So, I blew a gasket in public, and begged for an admin to take pity on poor pitiful me, and fix the situation. Not the best performance of my life. But, someone else, someone with the ability to track this if I don't log into Wikipedia every day, will now be my partner, where none were willing to be before. So, to any who took offense, I apologize. But, no lie, I really... have other things to do with my time. I shall now yield the soapbox, and step down. ;0) --  O liver  T wisted (Talk) (Stuff) 08:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Studio 54
(re-installed after new user deleted formatting when trying to add comment)

You can tell, I'm obviously new here. I'll get a source (i.e website with photo and proof of cultural impact) and add that to the sources. I think the fact that a DJ who was in 54's booth during the 80's doesn't have a page either, shows that a person could do something to warrant a footnote and not a whole page. Mr. Cashman may not have the stuff for a whole page but, I believe, and I'll show a source, that he deserves the recognition for this page. Again, I thank you for your time. Next time I edit the section I'll add something to the source page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adiscohistory (talk • contribs) 03:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for responding. A website with a photo is not considered a reliable source. When we asked that you familiarize yourself with the guidelines for notability on Wikipedia, this was done so that you could avoid the frustration of entering information which is not considered "notable". Articles for the band "Altamonte," have been introduced on Wikipedia before, and the community consensus (not mine) was that the band had not reached the threshold for notability, as expressed in this guideline (please click these blue links when they are provided) WP:BAND. When we talk about "reliable sources," as expressed here: WP:RS, and verifiability, as expressed here: WP:V, this is done so that you can avoid feeling continually discouraged by spending a good deal of time entering information, which does not meet the guidelines for inclusion on Wikipedia, and will most likely have to be deleted.


 * Also, the issue is not with a DJ who may or may not have had a booth at Studio 54. The issue is that not even one reliable source has been provided, and if this was the "law of the land," anyone could add any information to any article, whether accurate or not, and expect it to be kept. Standards have been set to make sure that independent, reliable sources are used for inclusion of information. This information (about Billy Smith) was deemed to not be reliable via several community discussions, involving dozens of editors. You can find a record of these conversations here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Billy_Amato


 * and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Billy_Smith,_Studio_54&action=edit&redlink=1


 * and here:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Billy_Smith/Amato,_Studio_54&action=edit&redlink=1


 * It was also determined that this individual refused to comply with Wikipedia guidelines, by abusing multiple accounts on Wikipedia, and all of those accounts have been banned for continuing to introduce unverified information, despite repeated advice, cautions and warnings. That evidence is concluded here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/WikAdvisor/Archive


 * Wikipedia is not a list of every bit of trivia regarding every topic. It is a list of notable information, as verified by outside sources: such as newspapers, network television, magazines, books, encyclopedias, archives and press coverage. Once you are more familiar with what type of information can be included, you will most likely have a wonderful time editing on Wikipedia. Please do keep in mind, that this is an encyclopedia, when deciding what information to include. Editors may not enter information about themselves, WP:COI. Editors may not add information which has not been verified, WP:V, or information which does not appear in a reliable source, WP:RS.


 * I'm going to be flippant here, for just a moment, so please don't take offense, but the tattoo on the arm of a musician in a band which failed to establish notability on Wikipedia (so far) doesn't have a real "cultural impact," because, as of yet, there is no evidence that any notable or reliable source has significantly covered this information. You could also understand that Wikipedia can't be a catalog of every tattoo on every musician's body.


 * Finally, when communicating on talk pages, please be careful to use the "+" button at the top of each article to add a new topic, and to type directly into the provided field, rather than copying and pasting, so that the formatting on a user's talk page is not disrupted. Also, please type four tildes, or use the signature button, after each comment on each talk page on Wikipedia, which is also required by the guidelines. Best of luck on your future edits. --  O liver  T wisted (Talk) (Stuff) 05:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Amrik Virdi
Hi. I've rearranged Amrik Virdi a bit, removed bogus references, and have put the one genuine reference inline - so I have removed the BLP PROD template. (I've no idea if the guy is sufficiently notable for an article, but I guess the presence of one ref is enough to avoid BLP PROD) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The reference does not address the subject of the article, it is a distraction, as it references the name of the gang. The source was written in 1995, and the subject was a hacker born in 1989. Please reconsider removing the Prod. Best regards. --  O liver  T wisted (Talk) (Stuff) 10:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, our messages crossed - I've reverted my removal of the PROD tag. Any idea what the mention of the "2005 non-fiction book Masters of Deception" might be about? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and took it to AFD. The book is about a gang, not about the hacker trying to pretend he's a member. Sometimes you just have to poke around a bit. ;0) --  O liver  T wisted (Talk) (Stuff) 10:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, the more I look the more it seems clearly a fake. I've reverted Masters of Deception too :-) Cheers -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Call me an "age bigot," but it's the first thing I check on these types of articles. It's amazing how many world famous students there might seem to be out there. Also, you have gotten really fast in your editing. I remember when you were just a newbie. Congratulations! ;0) --  O liver  T wisted (Talk) (Stuff) 10:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks :-) And yes, that was nice detection - it's best to be wary of claims made by kids. I'll go add my thoughts to the AfD now. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Jaramar
Whoops, I started trying to fix it, but I guess I didn't do a good enough job. :) Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's all good, I'm an editor in real life, so I do this stuff in my sleep. Every little bit helps, and the pronoun problems made it seem a lot worse than it actually was. I agreed completely with your comment. At first, I was wondering if this wasn't a transgendered person, then I realized it was just a problem translating from French, Spanish and English, with those tricky gendered pronouns. ;0)
 * I'm an editor, too, which is why I get pissed at myself if I don't do it right. :)  But then, I didn't look really closely.  Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Studio 54...
...is seeing some activity, again, from your IP friend. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 04:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It is unbelievably childish. Drmies (talk) 04:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. Yes, it is childish, made more-so by the consistent spelling errors which identify the user so clearly. I guess whatever block was implemented has finally expired. I'll check back a bit more often until he finds way into another blocked period. ;0) --  O liver  T wisted (Talk) (Stuff) 17:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Remember what you were doing in 2005? Drmies (talk) 01:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Drmies (talk) 23:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

George Lambie
Hi there,

I've noticed that you wrote things about George Lambie:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Lambie

Did you know the guy? I would be grateful if you could help me find things about him (I am a soccer writer by the way).

Thanks,

Steve — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apostolo3 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Steve, unfortunately I only helped clean up the reference section when the article was introduced to Wikipedia. I don't know any additional details. Good luck in your quest, though! --  O liver  T wisted (Talk) (Stuff) 19:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
You might want to comment at Sockpuppet investigations/WikAdvisor. I have opened an SPI regarding that IP.--Anderson - what's up? If you believe there has been a mistake, report it on my talk page. 04:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! This has been an ongoing thing for over two years now. As soon as the blocks expire, the user just comes back and attempts to post the exact same information on the same articles. If he's blocked, he then tries to paste the information on talk pages. When the blocks expire, he moves the information from the talk pages to the article pages. A few of the articles have been protected, which again leads him to post on the talk pages. It's like an endless circle, and he apparently has nothing better to do.  O liver  T wisted (Talk) (Stuff)  04:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's why i filed this SPI, to try and stop this.--Anderson - what's up? If you believe there has been a mistake, report it on my talk page. 05:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, as you probably noticed from my 3 previous filings of sockpuppet cases, although the evidence I present is basically irrefutable, none of the admins ever seem to want to do anything more than block anon. account creation, and then block the IP for 31 hours. Occasionally, I get a reprieve of like 3 months. It's nice to have someone else watching, as I feel like I'm banging my head against the wall with this user.  O liver  T wisted (Talk) (Stuff)  00:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Anderson - what's up? If you believe there has been a mistake, report it on my talk page. 01:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

WikAdvisor indef blocked
WikAdvisor has been indef blocked by Dennis Brown. I thought i'd give you the heads up.--Anderson - what's up?  06:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I appreciate the help. I'd like to think this will be the end of the 2 year Billy Amato odyssey. With the last 3 periods of activity now on record in the archives, any future vandalism should be easy to spot, and admins won't be so hesitant to impose a longer block. He has managed to rack up quite an impressive amount of bans and blocks, and I suspect he is running out of internet-capable devices and wi-fi spots with which to connect.  O liver  T wisted (Talk) (Stuff)  06:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Kelly Ayotte Labor rights revisions
RE the two revisions to the lines regarding Ayotte's position on Minimum Wage. Thank you for realizing the word unnecessary was not part of what was written and I agree that if it was it would not have followed the NPOV, but i disagree with your opinion that "burden" is subjective in this case as an automatic increase in minimum wage would increase costs for employers and that would be a burden (again I am not saying unnecessary just the fact that it would be a burden). Additionally there is no explanation as to why you removed the edit on the following line. It is simply written as a statement of what she believes in - letting employers make decisions regarding benefits and paid sick leave - instead of what she doesn't believe in - forcing employers to provide paid sick leave.

Lastly, the article that is used as the source for this leaves quite a bit to be desired and the newspaper (The Nashua Telegraph) is not known for great journalism; pandering to whoever they like in an election more than anything else.

Below if the verbatim from the Nashua Telegraph Article:

"Hodes endorsed raising the minimum wage to include increases in cost-of-living, giving unions the option of organizing by collecting names of supporters rather than through a secret ballot vote and mandating employers offer paid sick leave to their workers. Ayotte opposed all three proposed changes in federal labor laws."

TiminNHTiminNH (talk) 04:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no issue with your explanation. The phrase "unnecessary burden" is NPOV. While I might disagree with you in another forum about objective word use when writing about politics, the definition of the word "burden" would support your claim in this instance. As long as it is not preceded by "unnecessary", and the edit is not completed by user: 98.216.32.114, I will not protest its inclusion.

JS and 3RR
I posted this to JS's page, but for some reason he didn't want to you see it, taking care to delete it silently:


 * JS is quite familiar with 3RR, having had numerous warnings in the past, e.g. 

as he seems to do with previous 3RR warnings William M. Connolley (talk) 09:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate your diligence. I have viewed this editor's contributions, and noticed in addition to the bot-reported vandalism, this editor has been warned repeatedly about multiple issues. Where are all the admins this weekend?? I hate election seasons...  O liver  T wisted (Talk) (Stuff) 09:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, admin quality has declined in these policy-obsessed days. You just can't get the staff any more... William M. Connolley (talk) 20:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Connolley has been involved in arbitration cases here at Wikipedia and is stillbanned from editing climate change BLPs. He is only bringing this up because of my edits to climate change BLPs. --JournalScholar (talk) 12:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Any idea why JS thinks I'm stalking him? — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't imagine why anyone would think you're stalking them. No, wait... Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 16:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring?
I dropped by User talk:178.37.82.83 to add a note about stub tags and am puzzled by your two notices about edit warring - the IP only has 4 edits to its record, and no repeated edits. Are you confusing it with another editor, or assuming it to be the same person as another IP? Pam D  14:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, please see the sockpuppet investigation: . There is not much room for doubt. I applied the warning notices to the IPs to prevent them from engaging in further edit warring. I did not report the user for edit warring.  O liver  T wisted (Talk) (Stuff)  22:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Which vs. whose
That "rule" is by no means as categorical and rigid as you seem to imply. In any case, you're kind of missing the point -- "which signals" is just wrong introducing a relative clause. The alternative to "whose signals" would actually be "the signals of which..." --AnonMoos (talk) 08:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that was a great suggestion.  O liver  T wisted (Talk) (Stuff)  08:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Patterns
I was looking at the exchange which ended at this and it seems strange to me. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you be more specific? Should I be looking at the entire exchange, or the comments before mine?  O liver   T wisted (Talk) (Stuff)  07:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not trying to be vague. Specifically, I don't see a genuine discussion, I see browbeating. You walked away from it, but not because you were convinced by force of argument, just inability to get through. This isn't a consensus, it's a vote.StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * No argument there. My point of debate has yet to be refuted, nor did it contain any accusations of political motivation, so that comment after mine is a gross exaggeration at best, and a falsehood at worst. I will not allow myself to be dragged into the mud on this article again. If you wish to reference my argument, by all means, it's yours. I have many character flaws, but being masochistic isn't one of them. Best of luck, let me know if I can help. Cheers.  O liver   T wisted (Talk) (Stuff)  07:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not blaming you for walking away. I'm simply unhappy that we have a false consensus reached by intimidation. I've been seeing a lot of this lately, and it disturbs me, as there doesn't seem to be any mechanism to address it. Technically, a consensus isn't a vote and any view that's not reasonably grounded in Wikipedia policy isn't to be considered. Practically, a group of editors stonewalling together is enough to drive reasonable people away. Which is, of course, the point.
 * This is being paired with edit-warring that uses false claims about consensus, so it's not just a talk page problem. Given the visibility of these articles, I'm concerned that real damage is being done. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Feel free to vent here. I've been through the entire emotional roller coaster, starting on the night I was watching the Olympics, and Andrea Mitchell broke into the coverage to state that she had reliable sources who claimed that Paul Ryan was the VP pick. It's been an onslaught ever since, and some of the comments by some of the editors are going to go in the history books, because the press was reporting on the whole process, at one point in real-time. No admin would even rule on my 3RR postings, in fact, it was funny by its very conspicuousness. I'm not sure I've seen a single non-solicited admin intervention since the protecting of the page, despite being one of the busiest and most contentious pages on Wikipedia. The only advice I can give is to comment that it is just another page on Wikipedia, and beating your head against the wall will not help you live longer. The page will be edited thousands of times between now and the election. Sometimes it can be better to keep certain discussions from being archived too quickly (and the timeframe is now 2 days, down from 30) by judiciously adding comments when appropriate, and wait for the inevitable push-back, which will happen, provided the issues aren't buried and abandoned.  O liver   T wisted (Talk) (Stuff) 07:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's one of the other things. I don't find it difficult to refute weak arguments. If someone says there's no reliable source, I can toss reliable sources at them. If someone specifies a policy that, in fact, has nothing to do with the issue, I can point out why.

What I find difficult is getting people to even make an argument as opposed to express a preference. Worse, when there a few people with the same preference, they seem even less motivated to make an argument. Instead, they reinforce each other's preferences and start claiming consensus. The silliest part is when they claim consensus itself as the reason, as if the consensus had been handed down from above. And when you ask a direct question, one tactic is for them to just ignore you and wait for the section to go away.

Now, all of this is particularly obvious on Paul Ryan because of the nature of the article and the circumstances around it. It's a certainty that certain of the editors are paid political workers; I have my suspicions. It's a certainty that many of the unpaid editors are extreme partisans who just want Ryan to look good; these are obvious. I've seen all this and more on Mitt Romney, only slightly more calmly. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I've let some time pass, but I haven't walked away from the article completely. In regards to your (shared) suspicions, I always check edit histories, and most especially the edit analysis tool summaries of editors for whom I might possibly have suspicions of WP:COI and/or consistent POV-pushing, which luckily for me doesn't happen very often, because I stay away from political articles whenever humanly possible. A few of the most consistent and obvious POV-pushers on the right side of this equation have no edits before last month; a few more have no edits since 2009 (mid-term elections); and still more have no edits at all, except for talk pages. While this only constitutes a fraction of the 130 or so editors of this page, it is interesting. I have also had to report POV-pushers on the left side of this equation for consistent 3RR wars, without using the talk page. It appears neither side of the equation wants the equation to remain balanced, and neutral editors are unwilling to contribute in the same numbers as the other two groups.


 * In response to your statements about consensus, I couldn't possibly agree more. I think it is important for editors to challenge assumptions of non-demonstrated "consensus", regardless of which article we are discussing. Wikipedia's solution for these types of situations?WP:PROVEIT and "Show me". I will no longer accept statements that there is "consensus", unless it has been formally demonstrated with "keeps" and "deletes" in that very section, or a link to a thread with *clear* consensus... not just "stated consensus" by editors with a history of using this tactic.


 * When the formal question for inclusion or exclusion on the talk page is asked, in the question itself should be a disclaimer that unsubstantiated opinions, without reference to guidelines, policy or established (documented) consensus will not count towards consensus, as this is not a vote. If consensus is claimed elsewhere, a link should be provided. If you wish to use this "peacekeeping" tactic as well, a more clear consensus may be able to be demonstrated, rather than having real consensus (or lack of it) being drowned out by the loudest voices. Please feel free to keep me posted, should you encounter "avalanches". Cheers.  O liver   T wisted (Talk) (Stuff)  02:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not the pros that are on my mind. To be frank, I'd expect them to remain low-key and focus on adding cited, neutral material. Their partisanship is only revealed in the strange gaps in their coverage, where you would expect a "negative" fact to go but it never shows up, and in how they consistently weigh in on polls/RFC's. What amuses me are the desperately amateur attempts at cloak and dagger work by unpaid zealots.
 * I was reading a flyer that the ACLU sends its members, which focused largely on efforts to suppress non-conservative voting for the Presidential election. One thing that came to mind is that these voter suppression techniques are crude and statistical. Yes, early voting encourages non-whites to vote, but if you're non-white and you know they're using this trick against you, you should be motivated to wake up early on election day and do your civic duty. Yes, non-whites are less likely to have a photo ID, but if you're non-white and realize this is being used against you, you should be eager to get a photo ID. Suppression techniques depend on their victims being unmotivated, as opposed to angry.
 * In the same way, when there's a pile-on of people claiming consensus on the basis of consensus and stonewalling all discussion, the intended effect is to intimidate their victims into giving up. The most blatant example I've seen are the two demands I've received which insisted that I ought to stop editing because I'm not sufficiently neutral. The counter for this is to be motivated by their attempts at demotivation. I don't mean anger or whatever; that just falls into their trap. I mean steady determination. StillStanding (24/7)(talk) 03:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm going to archive this, just for the sake of space.  O liver   T wisted (Talk) (Stuff)  04:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

You appear to have violated 3RR
I am also concerned with the use of tools meant for undoing vandalism being used to revert good faith edits. I apologise for posting here. If you feel this post was made in error, please state why here if you wish or delete this message to acknowledge seeing it.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Show the diffs.  O liver   T wisted (Talk) (Stuff)  03:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

1st revert - Undid revision 508113178 by Amadscientist.

2nd revert - Reverted good faith edit(s) by 82.57.155.240 using STiki Use of Stiki for non vandal revert.

3rd revert - Reverted good faith edit(s) by 86.148.94.111 using STiki Use of Stiki for non vandal revert.

4th revert - Reverted good faith edit(s) by 75.3.240.145 using STiki Use of Stiki for non vandal revert.

5th revert - Reverted good faith edit(s) by 166.250.33.203 using STiki Use of Stiki for non vandal revert.

Under normal circunstances, using tools to revert good faith contributions is not allowed. I am unclear if this applies with good faith reverts or not using Stiki, but even when reverting with a tool that could possibly allow good faith reverts, it is still a revert of a non vandal contribution faling under the same rules of reverting more than 3 times for non vandal editing within a 24hr period. You are at 5.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but these appear to be reverts to separate articles. In other words, it's 1RR x5. That's not an example of bright-line edit-warring. Also, there appear to be meaningful comments, as opposed to "rvv" or whatever. So how is this edit-warring?StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Diff 1: You may count this, if you wish.
 * Diff 2: Please note, that the track "skindiving" does not appear in the compilation Snowboarding in Argentina, and this was reverted as a good faith test edit, and was labeled as such,.
 * Diff 3: Please note the addition of the phrase  especially in countries where "holler" is not used to a common children's rhyming song article. It was an editorial comment, and it was removed with a "good faith revert" label. Should I have left it in?
 * Diff 4: Please note the addition of the person: Kelly Wright, Fox News. With no affiliate information, or other assertion of notability, this information is not verifiable, and was thus reverted as a good faith test edit. Should I have left it in?
 * Diff 5: Please note the addition of the sentence: An extremely high quantity of remixes have been released based on The Eraser showing evidence of its "cult classic" status and vast devoted fan base. No source was provided claiming "cult classic" status, nor did the statement "An extremely high quantity of remixes... showing evidence of its cult classic status..." pass the "reasonable test" person for logic, without a reliable source. Should I have left it in?
 * Under normal circunstances, using tools to revert good faith contributions is not allowed. I am unclear if this applies with good faith reverts or not using Stiki. As you are unclear, it is probably best to not accuse me of something. As it happens, I am required to take action when presented with potential vandalism, and warned when I attempt to "Pass" without a good reason. I'm sorry if not being granted the Rollbacker status prevents you from a fuller understanding of recent changes patrol.

You have become non-objective when it comes to me. You have indulged in gross exaggerations or falsehoods, under the guise of rational discourse, as well as indulging in personal provocations on multiple occasions over the last week: By the way...a big issue here is an editor who claims to be reverting anyone who deletes something from HP.here (false, no diffs shown, nothing of the kind was ever said), ''Maybe you wish to call attention to my being a (removed) and suggest that has some bearing on it? Perhaps my interest and work in musical theatre? I did Oliver last summer, is that it?here (false, never made any personal accusations, period, nor was it shown that I had), and Are you CHALLENGINMG me to revert? Wow...that takes some balls. LOL!''here (antagonistic, chauvinistic, and not appropriate on a talk page). You argue with me for the sake of arguing, even when we are agreeing on somethingone example here. I feel that all conversation is stymied when you invoke "consensus" which is not present, and every time I point out it isn't present, you disrupt the page with the dogged determination of someone who has lost all neutrality and focus. I believe you need to disengage from me presently, for these reasons stated above. Further personal harassment by you will be documented more clearly, and taken to the appropriate venue. I will not be bullied into silence, and I have not violated the 3RR rule. This too falls under the category of gross exaggeration or patent falsehood.  O liver   T wisted (Talk) (Stuff) 05:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no such policy for 1RRx5 a revert under 3RR is any page: ''A "page" means any page on Wikipedia, including talk and project space. A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. It can involve as little as one word. A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert.'' ''The three-revert rule applies per person, not per account; reverts made by multiple accounts operated by one editor count together. Editors violating 3RR will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident. Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit-warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times.''

Since you feel objectivity is lost and you are being bullied, I shall discontinue discussion here and simply state that you take responsbility for your actions using Stiki and most follow policy and guidelines. I'll file formal report. Thank you.--Amadscientist(talk) 06:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm going to chime in here to explain that WP:3RR draws a bright line at 4RR on any given page in a 24-hour period. If you think otherwise, you are misreading the rule. I'm WP:AGF at the expense of WP:COMPETENCE. StillStanding (24/7)(talk) 06:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, I see what you are saying, that the 3RR is "limited" to a single article or page with 4 reverts to be a vioation. So that warning given to another the other day was false, only 3RR violations count when reverts are being made on a single page. Is this correct?--Amadscientist (talk) 06:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, if you have more than 3RR on a single page in a single day (24-hour period), you've crossed the "bright line" into edit-warring. At that point, a report against you from someone with clean hands is quite likely to result in a block.
 * A formal notice -- either a template or a personalized message -- is usually placed once the editor reaches 3RR, although it can come earlier or later. That's because edit-warring can occur even without crossing the bright line. I've placed notices at 1RR when BRD is violated, though that's not a common behavior. Many advise placing a notice at 2RR, at which point a pattern is visible.
 * Keep in mind that nobody is absolutely entitled to 3RR. I was blocked for what was initially reported as 4RR, yet when I pointed out that it was just 3RR, the block was not lifted, on the theory that it was still edit-warring. Blocking for less than 4RR happens but it's hit or miss. And if you go in with dirty hands, you might get yourself blocked instead of the editor you reported, or in addition. Sometimes, nobody's blocked and the page is instead protected for a couple of days.
 * Sound complicated enough? StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I've asked you (Amadscientist) to disengage from me. I'm now stating it officially. Take it to the 3RR board if you think you have a case. If you have something else to accuse me of, then the next item posted from you on my user talk page should be an official notice, or I won't expect a visit from you again. You are currently dominating my entire Wikipedia experience, and not in a good way.  O liver   T wisted (Talk) (Stuff) 06:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Please give me a chance to share my understanding of WP:3RR policy. Never ascribe to malice what can be explained by incompetence. But incompetence is curable. If he understands why the 3RR accusation was false and apologizes, that's a better result than telling him never to darken your doorstep. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your efforts, however, I don't need an apology. This isn't high school, although you'd barely know it. The best medicine for this outbreak of animus is time. I have no interest further contesting the bitter rantings of little tyrants clutching at fiefdoms of air. No real cause was shown for any official 3RR warning, and I will take the unofficial warning in the spirit with which it was given, and hope the conversation painted a more clear picture for all parties involved. I have real editing work to complete, and this is just a distraction, as it was intended to be.  O liver   T wisted (Talk) (Stuff)  07:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

By all means, focus on what interests you. The apology would not be for you, really, but rather for him.StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 August 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 05:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 August 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 13:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.

IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.

Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:


 * Views/Day : Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
 * Quality : Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.

The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:


 * Content : Is more content needed?
 * Headings : Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
 * Images : Is the number of illustrative images about right?
 * Links : Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
 * Sources : For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)