User talk:Richwales/Archives/2012-04

Please comment on Talk:Sri Lanka
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Sri Lanka. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 11:15, 8 April 2012 (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 recommendations. 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 in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High.

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. 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) 12:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Your comment on Talk:Vietnam Service Medal page
Please see my response on the Talk:Vietnam Service Medal page about your concerns. I agree that it needs some work. Cuprum17 (talk) 19:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

TUSC token 177d8eaecb2abd9f4c09fc38f24bdd20
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richwales (talk • contribs) 04:42, 2 April 2012 (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 recommendations. 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 in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High.

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. 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) 13:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Content dispute resolution at GOC nearing conclusion
Hi RichWales,

I write to inform you that it is looking as though a conclusion is on the horizon in regards to the minor content dispute surrounding a paragraph written on Georgian Orthodox Church which argues the term of "independence" between GOC and AAC. Both Aregakn and GeorgianJorjadze have provided their own interpretations of what reliable sources have published, and in a civil manner too. Also User:Meowy (an uninvolved editor) has provided his interpretation too. Looking at what everyone has written, it seems that they are all in some form of agreement in connection to the subject. However, the confusion lies with the personal interpretations of the definition of one word "autocephalous". I have written an extensive report on what information I managed to find on the internet, and explained about this word definition mix-up. All that remains now is to bring together both users to understand the correct definition that should be used, and not the confused version. Once that has been established, then I see no objection in finalising the discussion, and drawing it to a peaceful closure. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you personally, for allowing me to assist in the resolution of all this dispute. Many regards - Wesley  ☀  Mouse  22:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Rich,
 * Quick update on the dispute case. I did all I could in dealing with the matter in question.  I invited both editors to write down their own interpretation of what they thought the Encyclopaedia Britannica was meaning in regards to GOC and AAC.  A third uninvited editor also took part; and I also wrote down how I understood the sources, plus included in my writings information that I found from other sources concerning the same topic.  On review of all the written statements from editors, 3 of them resemble details very closely; while 1 written statement appears to be copyedit text from the sources.   and  both seem to agree that the disputed paragraph is correct in some way, although one word comes across as misleading; and therefore distorting the entirety of the true facts.  Throughout the dispute, I have remained as civil as possible, and even asked another admin to review what had been written, just in case I had done something wrong and had missed it.   reviewed the dispute, and confirmed that I had done well, but raised a concern over an editor using the "you're Armenian/you're Georgian" tactic.  The advice from Drmies was that has 3 out of 4 people seem to agree on what the sources are actually stating; that a consensus has been reached, and the disputed paragraph rephrased appropriately.  However, it looks like  is still in disagreement, despite a majority decision on sourced facts; and has resorted to sly insults towards myself; all of which I have taken with a pinch of salt, and don't intend to take action against the user.  As of that, I have now closed the dispute discussion down, listing the points Drmies mentioned.  What happens in regards to Aregakn is in your hands (so to speak).  Again, thanks for the opportunity to deal with this matter.  Kindest regards -  Wesley  ☀  Mouse  00:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. Please understand that I don't claim any particular expertise on this topic, and I'm not claiming any sort of supervisory or editorial authority over the content of this article (except possibly to step in if needed to stop an edit war — something which, per WP:INVOLVED, I can only do if I stay as neutral as possible).  This is a very large amount of material, but I will try to read and absorb it over the next few days so I'll be aware of what is going on.  —  Rich wales 05:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit chase
I encountered two edit conflicts when we were both working on the Katrina Swett article at about the same time today. You may wish to check that I didn't damage any of your changes. --AndersW 23:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It looks like we're OK.  —  Rich wales 23:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)