User talk:Rd232/Archive 10

Retired
I'm suddenly struck that Wikipedia has become more trouble than it's worth. I may return one day; having forgot what it's like (I did before, after long absence) if so I hope it won't be soon. PS yes, the cumulative crapness of and around the current Arbcom case figures in this, as it illustrates vividly how this part of Wikipedia dispute resolution is also in dire need of improvement; but it's more like the straw that broke the camel's back. And I know me; in response to this case I'll have more desire to improve dispute resolution, and it won't work, and be a gigantic waste of time. I've got better things to do, and to waste my time on... So I reject this putative move of mine to spend more time on Wikipedia, with a counter-move that says "nope. The End. (For A Good Long While, At Least)". Rd232 talk 11:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Best of luck in all you do Rd. — Ched : ?  11:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks; likewise. I've burned my 4k+ watchlist (raw mode edit -> Ctrl+A -> delete), so that'll help make this stick. Rd232 talk 13:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Likewise, best wishes. -- J N  466  14:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * -Take care, hope to see you back soon eventually. Throwaway85 (talk) 15:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to see you "retire", I've always appreciated and valued your work here. The frustration is understandable, though. --NSH001 (talk) 16:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Hope to see you back before too long. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go, but good luck to you. Always a fan of your work here. Dayewalker (talk) 18:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * What led to this is just sickening. That is all.  CycloneGU (talk) 19:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Glad you "got it". Sorry you have left. Hope you return soon. Ben  Mac  Dui  19:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Good luck in everything Rd232. Perhaps given time you'll come back. I can say that my limited interactions with MMN were some of the worst experiences I've had online and am not surprised you feel like this after all that's happened. But seriously take a rest and enjoy yourself and maybe we'll see you again on WP in the future-- Cailil  talk 21:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You've done an enormous amount of work for the project and there are many that are thankful. I've learned a lot from watching you work and appreciate your generous efforts. I'm sorry to see you go. You will be missed, so please stop by once in a while just to say hi. Best regards. - Hydroxonium (T•C• V ) 05:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I will miss you RD232. Thanks for all your hard work. Enjoy your break. --John (talk) 07:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope you that you are retiring only from enwiki—you have been fairly active in Commons recently? Ruslik_ Zero 09:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry to see your intent to retire, even temporarily. And happy to see you didn't quite manage to do so yet. :) Maybe just change your focus instead for a while? Cheers, Amalthea  20:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure how I only found out about this today, but you made the right choice. Wikipedia has just become a big pile of dinosaur poop and trying to dig out the diamonds takes too much effort. Now if only I can manage to extract myself soon, too ... / ƒETCH COMMS  /  03:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry to see you announcing your retirement - hope the announcement proves to have been premature, and we'll see you back after a well-earned break. Meanwhile, enjoy real life :) --Kotniski (talk) 07:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

AN notice
Well not that you care much now, Mr. Retiree :) but for the sake of formality I'm letting you know that I brought some of the mbz junk to AN...not the block and revdel issue directly, but the fact that she is now using her page to label other editors trolls, complete with pretty pictures. Tarc (talk) 19:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, well, I'd say this breaches my informal email agreement with mbz1 not to use her talk page to say things like that, and the agreed consequence was to reblock without talkpage access. So I've done that (post-retirement, since I'm in a unique position to handle it). Rd232 talk 19:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well that solves that, pretty much. Thanks. Tarc (talk) 20:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank for (even in retirement!) being there to help, RD. I'd like to politely request that Mbz1's block log be reinstated. I know you RevDel'd her unblock from Gwen Gale in good faith that Mbz1 was leaving, but she obviously wasn't. If you're going to retire, there's no guarantee that she won't return one of these days, and you may not be around to explain why the block was RevDel'd in the first place. Dayewalker (talk) 20:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "in good faith that Mbz1 was leaving, but she obviously wasn't." - I don't see it that way, it's more of a "hanging around outside the open door" than "not leaving", and the door is now closed. Anyway I think it's enough to state here that if she returns, the revdel should be undone. Rd232 talk 20:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee closed
An arbitration case regarding has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
 * 1) MickMacNee is banned from Wikipedia for a period of no less than one year. After this minimum time has elapsed, MickMacNee will remain banned indefinitely, until such time as he demonstrates to the Committee that he is no longer a threat to the collaborative nature of the project.
 * 2) is admonished for engaging in hostile and uncollegial conduct, and warned that the Committee may impose additional sanctions by motion if such conduct reoccurs.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 12:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * In response to the Committee's decision to declare finding 3.1, "Rd232 ... has used his administrative tools while involved. ", I've requested a desysopping at WP:BN. If I had not retired, I would be doing a reconfirmation RFA (it is after all 5 years since my RFA), but that's not going to happen now. I will do one in the event that I return, if I want to be an admin then. Rd232 talk 21:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Good bye. Rd232 talk 21:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

ANI
I realise this probably isn't what you need on your talk page in retirement, but the must notify wording was nagging at me, so this is just a note to say that I mentioned you in passing in this edit at ANI. I'll remove this (if there are no replies) once the ANI thread is archived. Thank you for all your hard work on Wikipedia over the years. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Self-request for removal of adminship
Further to Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 22, I would like to re-confirm with you that you would like your administrator permissions to be removed.

I should point out that - while it would be a self-request - you've made statements to the effect that you would've put yourself for reconfirmation because of the recent Arbitration Committee finding; and you've indicated that, should you desire to return to adminship, that you would submit a new RFA. Statements of this character made in the past have sometimes precluded the restoration of permissions via the WP:RESYSOP procedure (or at least delayed them, while the request was discussed by bureaucrats).

Let me know. – xeno talk 13:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoops, I already went ahead and did it per . I'll go undo it if someone objects.  MBisanz  talk 14:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for either current or future bureaucrats, of course, but for what it's worth, I know of nothing in either the recent arbitration case (which was closed before this request was made) or anything else that would preclude Rd232 from reclaiming his adminship upon request if he should choose to do so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you. In making those statements it was my intention to publicly commit myself to doing an RFA (if I wanted the sysop bit back). Rd232 talk 16:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of We Want Blood! for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article We Want Blood! is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/We Want Blood! until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Cerejota (talk) 13:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed article creation trial
You might be interested in Autoconfirmed article creation trial. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Defunct
Template:Defunct has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Kumioko (talk) 22:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of We Want Blood! for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article We Want Blood! is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/We Want Blood!(2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Courcelles 15:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 07:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of East Germany jokes


The article East Germany jokes has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Wikipedia is not the place for a collection of jokes. Also, no references are given.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Kaldari (talk) 07:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bird
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Bird. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 08:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Dispute Resolution
You may be interested in this. Peter jackson (talk) 18:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Afd top
I've had to revert your edit to afd top; as the template is normally substituted, it would seed an expensive parser function thoughout the archives. Safesubsting won't help either, as that would create a static link... or not, which would result in no link even after a (talk) page has been recreated. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 14:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well if you think it necessary to avoid it, fine (presumably there's a good reason for the subst:ing, otherwise changing that would be one solution). The archives are noindexed and not normally viewed, so I wasn't worried about that. Perhaps you could follow up my suggestion at Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-11-28/In_the_news and do something with Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, at least. Rd232 talk 19:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (Re mail) I don't really have a solution, but I don't see a problem either; the talk page link is red (and might in future be recreated). Maybe ammending the text like "...the article's talk page (if it exists), or Deletion Review" works just as well. I see no feasable way to automate this. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 11:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There's likely no problem with an "expensive parser function" on all archived AfDs, really the pages will be re-rendered so rarely that it should be insignificant, and "Too many expensive parser function calls" is a relatively high number. (Note also that good hardware/software design should make it actually one hash lookup, which is pretty cheap.) Nonetheless it would be possible to remove the expensive parser function call after, say 6 months, either through templatology or a bot. Rich Farmbrough, 02:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC).

Nomination for deletion of Template:No drama
Template:No drama has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Bulwersator (talk) 05:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Betacommand
As one of the admins who blocked Betacommand/Delta in the 12 month period leading up to the present ArbCom case, it would be helpful if you could look over the questions here and see how much information you can recall.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  00:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, very briefly:
 * 0. The discussion which led to Lankiveil's civility block is at Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive701; my reduction of it is explained in that thread at Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive701.
 * My block is briefly explained in my initial post at Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive224; basically for simple violation of the community restriction on editing speed. Delta's response ("will quietly take my lumps for that, because I was not paying close enough attention to the clock") is here.
 * no, though there was some discussion on the user talk page afterwards, and much discussion with others about the edit restrictions and NFCC at Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive224.
 * the block 2 weeks earlier for violating the speed restriction affected the length of the block, certainly, and also the ease with which the decision to block was reached. (Since the restriction was only breached by a little over 10%, without a recent block a warning/reminder might possibly have sufficed. Hard to say now how likely that outcome would have been.)
 * The block I placed was solely due to the editing restriction (speed restriction).
 * If... then... no block.
 * I felt at the time that much of the problem, at least as I was confronted with it, was actually due to the failure of the community to get to grips with NFCC policy and policy enforcement in a really workable way. The room for disagreement was large because of that, with something resembling two opposing camps on the NFCC issue. Delta's role as a lightning rod for the disagreement overshadowed at times the fact that he wasn't to blame for the underlying policy problem. Unfortunately, my attempts to clear up that policy problem (there was an RFC a bit later) didn't really get that far, AFAIR.
 * Rd232 talk 23:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

RevDel RfC
Hey, Rd232. I see you've labeled your account as retired. Nevertheless, I see you've edited recently, and I'm sure you would like to participate in this RfC. It basically puts forth your proposal from last May, which you made after our discussions on WT:REVDEL about removing RD5. Since it's your proposal, you're welcome to make any changes to it as you see fit. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 16:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know - I'm very happy to see someone pick up that loose end, after the effort FT2 and I put into it. However, I don't see the need for me to do anything there; and despite occasional (mostly cross-wiki-related) edits, I'm sticking with the "retired" label/plan. Also, by one of those cosmic coincidences, I've got my own RevDel RFC going on Commons today! :) (commons:Commons_talk:Revision_deletion). cheers, Rd232 talk 16:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Man, that is a bizarre coincidence. I guess that explains why I got shivers when I posted the RfC here. Thanks for everything, and good luck with your future endeavors! A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 17:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Documentation for gadget authors
I saw you had done some work on heavily-used gadgets. We're trying to start a library for gadget authors to use. Please check it out and post any questions or comments there — ☠ MarkAHershberger ☢ (talk) ☣ 18:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of East Germany jokes for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article East Germany jokes is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/East Germany jokes until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Sloyment (talk) 10:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough's editing restriction
Hey, Rd232. I know your talk page says you're retired, but I also see you've edited recently, so I was hoping you could put in your thoughts on a discussion I'm having with Rich on his talk page here. He's stated that some of the changes he's making which I believe to be in violation of his editing restriction where authorized by you as the person who closed the discussion about the restriction. Some clarification, and your opinions, would be helpful. Thanks! Hers fold  (t/a/c) 01:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yee-es, the retirement is drifting into "semi" territory (partly because of some overlap from Commons) but I don't want to change the template because it will only encourage me :). As for Rich... I've found the discussion, here (he deleted it between your message and now). I've also looked at Editing restrictions and the AN discussion that placed the restriction. The spirit of the restriction is that "Rich is injuncted from making cosmetic changes which do not have demonstrable community support", so the suggestion that I authorised exceptions doesn't make sense to me (though maybe if he provides diffs, it might make sense somehow). However the capitalisation of templates is actually specifically mentioned as banned by the edit restriction, in the Editing restrictions footnote. He shouldn't be capitalising templates when bypassing redirects, either, unless there is now consensus to have template calls capitalised. Rd232 talk 11:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Berlin hackathon invitation
I invite you to the yearly Berlin hackathon, 1-3 June. Registration is now open. If you need financial assistance or help with visa or hotel, then please register by May 1st and mention it in the registration form.

This is the premier event for the MediaWiki and Wikimedia technical community. We'll be hacking, designing, teaching, and socialising, primarily talking about ResourceLoader and Gadgets (extending functionality with JavaScript), the switch to Lua for templates, Wikidata, and Wikimedia Labs.

We want to bring 100-150 people together, including lots of people who have not attended such events before. User scripts, gadgets, API use, Toolserver, Wikimedia Labs, mobile, structured data, templates -- if you are into any of these things, we want you to come!

I also thought you might want to know about other upcoming events where you can learn more about MediaWiki customization and development, how to best use the web API for bots, and various upcoming features and changes. We'd love to have power users, bot maintainers and writers, and template makers at these events so we can all learn from each other and chat about what needs doing.

Check out the the developers' days preceding Wikimania in July in Washington, DC and our other events.

Best wishes! - Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation's Volunteer Development Coordinator. Please reply on my talk page, here or at mediawiki.org. Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Volunteer Development Coordinator 21:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I seem to compliment you a lot
I seemed to have joined the party too late to comment on AN but I stand by most of what you said there. Good on you. Killiondude (talk) 21:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * thanks. :) Rd232 talk 00:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Note
The case is about Elen, Hersfold, Fram and Me. We are all parties. Rich Farmbrough, 23:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC). (Using some automation)


 * Mm hm. What's the case called again? Rd232 talk 00:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet" or in this case, as sour. Rich Farmbrough, 01:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC).

You're right
You're right. I did not notice that I actually changed the subject there - I meant to show that there was only one unblock after the new, somewhat more strict, message was instated. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I see. Well feel free to clarify that (the relationship with the change of unblock message) in the new subsection. Rd232 talk 12:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll try. Maybe I should just plain mention it in the previous thread.  Thanks.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure. Rd232 talk 17:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Just dropped by ...
... to say it's good to see you about again. Welcome back. — Ched : ?  18:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * thanks. I don't think everyone agrees... :) Rd232 talk 18:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Well ... I guess some elements feel easily threatened. — Ched : ?  20:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Moved from SandyGeorgia's talk page
Since User:SandyGeorgia has decided to censor parts of our discussion, I'm putting them here for archival purposes: Rd232 talk 18:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 
 * 


 * I doubt there's much hope for a meeting of minds on the topic. I happen to operate on an ideal that we should make every article as good as we can—not after the fact, but during the creation process—because our readers come in at any given time and look at our work. We don't work in a vacuum. I come from a background where style and formatting matter, although I'm well aware that some people don't put much focus on it. If the prose is decent but the formatting is unprofessional, that's a loss for Wikipedia. In my experience, style and formatting are 2x more difficult to manage after the writing process, and that's when I've written the prose. If someone else has written it, it's maybe 4x more difficult. I'll expend a bit more effort while I'm writing so someone else doesn't have to expend 4x the effort later. That's my view of the spirit of collaboration. Maybe it's worth something to the project, or maybe it's a fool's errand. Only time will tell. -- Laser brain  (talk)  18:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. The inconsistencies Sandy was objecting to arose from copying from different articles. As long as we don't require one single format across WP, that's going to happen sometimes, and it's no more work to fix later than immediately. On the other hand, fixing it immediately may be a waste of time and effort, since the source may well not even be in a later, more developed version of the article. Also, in my experience it's easier to fix all those style issues at once when the article is stable, than to worry about it when you're trying to develop the content. (Some of the issues are fixed automatically by bots anyway, or can be assisted by tools.) That's quite apart from the issue of what priority that stylistic consistency should be relative to content. Rd232 talk 19:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Election article
Hi. Per this edit, I'm struggling to see how my paraphrase misrepresented the source. I don't really care enough to press the point, but I'd be interested to know the specific problems. I'd also say that "to generate this show" is at best difficult to parse, and at worst ambiguous. It's not even clear in the original article that the CPJ cites. The gist of El Aissami's view is that he blames the opposition for the violence, so why not just say that? Steve T • C 20:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * replied on article talk, to avoid splitting discussion. Rd232 talk 08:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Undeletion of Customizing_watchlists
✅ JamesBWatson (talk) 10:01, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * thanks. Rd232 talk 10:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you. I now have my watchlist set up the way I want, and understand more about how to change it if I want to in the future.

Speedy deletion nomination of Domínguez & Cía


A tag has been placed on Domínguez & Cía requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Prestonmag (talk) 17:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Application of non-US copyright RFC
Hi Rd232, some time ago you closed the horribly undecisive RfC on those no-copyrights-relations-with-the-US countries at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights. There is currently a curious case on FFD (, and yes, it's about San Marino, of all places). Just wanted to give you a heads-up, in case you might want to add a comment regarding what conclusions should be drawn from the RfC. Cheers, – Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, I've added a clarifying (I hope) comment. Rd232 talk 21:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Hugo Chavez pay for propaganda scheme
In order to try to get more information on the person who is trying to buy someone on Craigslist to inject his POV into the article Hugo Chavez, I sent an email acting like I wanted to do the job.

[redacted Rd232 talk 23:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)]

So in summary, his name is Bryan Swan, and he appears to be new to Wikipedia. (He claimed to be using the account User:Chamoquemas, which has already been blocked, rather than an account with a lot of edits and experience). I would suggest, considering that he's trying to buy meatpuppets on craigslist, that an administrator goes ahead and checks to see if Chamoquemas' IP or email address has been used to create any other accounts, so that they can be blocked. Also, the email header from the above exchange said that the sender's IP was [redacted Rd232 talk 23:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)], so that one should be checked too (although I'm not sure if that will be relevant, since he's been using his iPhone to send the messages). ~ Mesoderm (talk) 19:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. User:Swanbryan was renamed to User:Chamoquemas yesterday, so that identity is no great secret. The rest I've redacted. The account has already been checkusered and some socks blocked; I'm not sure there's much else to be done at this point. Rd232 talk 23:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Copei
Moving Copei to COPEI would be best addressed by a new WP:RM discussion. Your point, while valid, was not really considered in the move request that had no objections. So I'm not willing to override that without an additional discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh come on, this is a trivially obvious technical move. The previous move was not exactly hotly debated either (the move to the stupid title which that RM undid wasn't discussed at all). Rd232 talk 22:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Watch your language
Wikipedia is about getting the facts out, not about forwarding you personal political bias. Dr Ulf Erlingsson (talk) 00:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Facts, yes. "Fantasy" (the language you seemed to object to), no. And I don't think it unduly harsh to call a claim of a million-strong march based on a source that says thousands, when other sources say tens of thousands, "fantasy". Rd232 talk 00:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Audit Commission
Having worked on the article previously, would you take a look at Editor_assistance/Requests and what's been done by this editor. I'm not sure whether it's soapbox nonsense which ought to be rv'd or good content that ought to be cleaned up and/or forked, and you already have some knowledge of the subject. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It was a tough one... I wanted to make it a standalone article and go from there in terms of cleanup, but it was just not suitable. I've moved it to a userpage draft and left the user a note. Rd232 talk 15:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd been wondering what could be done about this, so it's good to see this neat solution. But Aithne_Arnette/National_Fraud_Initiative doesn't seem to be a userpage; it looks like mainspace. Am I missing something, or is there more to be done? Best, NebY (talk) 10:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oops, yes. I've moved it to where I meant to put it, i.e. User:Aithne_Arnette/National_Fraud_Initiative. Rd232 talk 12:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The points made on the NFI were not I do not think a synthesis as each point was carefully referenced and stood alone.

There is a big issue with the article as it stands because one of the references is to a Guardian article which contains legally and financially misleading information, and information which is controversial. The article asserts that the NFI identifies millions of pounds worth of 'wrongly claimed or paid discounts' whereas in fact a great deal of reputable and independent opinion, which has now been deleted, asserts that the cases which some within the NFI regard as 'wrongly claimed or paid' are not in fact wrongly paid or claimed but the 'wrongness' supposedly identified by the NFI is apparent rather than real. The law is quite clear about the legal position of a person in receipt of a discount of 25% under the Local Government Finance Act. In fact, complaints about very similar misleading information in a national report published by the NFI resulted in an Audit Commission solicitor writing a briefing for the NFI explaining CT discount law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aithne Arnette (talk • contribs) 23:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, make that argument in a short paragraph with a good source, put it on the article talk page, and we'll go from there. Rd232 talk 23:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * NB the Audit_Commission article doesn't currently mention discounts specifically (though presumably these are part of the "fraud" total). Rd232 talk 00:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Venezuela
Hello, your edits at Venezuela show that you're not understanding how we are transcribing Spanish at Wikipedia. Our transcription system is one that encodes for all dialects, which means that it maintains contrasts that are present in some dialects but lost in others (such as that between z and s). While it may seem strange to indicate a foreign-seeming pronunciation (that is, a European pronunciation for a Latin American country), the logic parallels that of English transcriptions in that we use one transcription that all dialects are derivable from. The footnote that explains the treatment of z at WP:IPA for Spanish is not indicating how we transcribe Spanish, but how to read the transcription. As I said in my edit summary, if you don't like this policy, you should take it up at WT:IPA for Spanish. — Æµ§œš¹  [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 16:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand what you're saying, but neither WP:IPA for Spanish nor IPA for English explains this - and frankly it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me; much more obvious to have the local pronunciation, with Castillian Spanish in addition if required. In any case, you were editing the English IPA pronunciation (IPAc-en) to reflect Castillian Spanish, which is unambiguously wrong. Rd232 talk 16:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not explicitly laid out in the guide, but the norm of using one transcription for all Spanish dialects is established in the talk page. If anything, a discussion can be centered around codifying and making explicit whatever policy we decide is appropriate. This is why I suggested taking it to WT:IPA for Spanish.  — Æµ§œš¹  [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]  19:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've read through the talk page and its archives and don't see any clear indication of a consensus for practice as you describe. In any case, if it isn't written down anywhere, then WP:VPP would be a better place for that sort of discussion, since it applies to more than just Spanish. Since you're more familiar with the issues, it would be better if you took the lead in organising some sort of discussion. At the end of the day, I think the local pronunciation or pronunciations should be in the article; other major versions can be too, but it risks overcrowding the lead, and I'm not sure if there's a standard way to handle that. Rd232 talk 22:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If IPA for Spanish allowed for two systems, we would have something like at WP:IPA for Portuguese and Galician with two columns, one for European and one for New World Spanish. We don't, and so the default assumption is that we have one system of transcription for all Spanish transcriptions that link to the guide.
 * Most of the discussions, such as this one and this one show very little challenge to the idea of using Castilian. In this discussion, the idea of changing from Castilian was discussed more thoroughly, but there was no agreement.  It was brought up again here and, although the idea of having two systems was talked of favorably, it wasn't implemented in the guide.
 * I can bring up the issue again at IPA for Spanish. I'm not very familiar with WP:VPP and I'm not sure what bringing it up there will accomplish when the issue is just about Spanish.  Each language guide has to be treated differently because there are different issues with each language or language group.  If you're more familiar with the Village Pump, you could maybe bring up the issue and point to WT:IPA for Spanish so that we can get more voices than from just the handful of editors who monitor the guide. — Æµ§œš¹  [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]  03:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hm. The Portuguese/Galician example is helpful - why not do that multi-column approach for Spanish? It also says at the top Neither Portuguese variant is preferred over the other at Wikipedia except in cases where a local pronunciation is clearly more relevant, such as a place in Brazil or a Portuguese artist. I can't quite decide whether a limited IPA Spanish discussion would be better than a wider one at VPP. I don't think the issue is just Spanish; the question of whether local pronunciation should be presented, where it differs from the wider standard or standards, is general. Picking a non-Spanish/Portuguese example at random: Marseille does exactly what I'd expect (at the expense of taking up the entire first line with pronunciation issues). Rd232 talk 07:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd say that the treatment of local pronunciations is something that differs from language to language. There was an issue a while back about transcriptions of English on not only whether local pronunciations should be indicated when they were of places where people speak non-rhotic dialects, but how local to get, which opens a whole other can of verification issues.  The only general tendency that I've seen across languages is that "local" pronunciations don't tend to link to the language-specific guide, as is the case at Marseille.  — Æµ§œš¹  [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]  12:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Right.... where does that leave us? Rd232 talk 12:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I've started a discussion at WT:IPA for Spanish and you're welcome to contribute. It's my impression that the people who follow that page are either linguists or Spanish enthusiasts and if you feel like the Village Pump would get other viewpoints, it might be a good idea to use it to draw attention to the discussion. — Æµ§œš¹  [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]  23:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Melucci


The article Melucci has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Dab to two entries, one does not exist. Suggest del & move existing here (until a Dab is needed)

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Nouniquenames (talk) 14:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28
Hi. When you recently edited El Playón, Venezuela, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Portuguesa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Statυs (talk) 19:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Pedro de Aguado
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Draft proposal on Notability (geography)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (geography). 142.162.108.223 (talk) 12:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you, you're very kind. Rd232 talk 12:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)