User talk:Richwales/Archives/2012-05

Decapitation
[including material copied from Denisarona's talk page]

Hi. I saw you reverted the changes made by the IP editor to the Decapitation article, in which mention of victims of the Srebrenica massacre having been beheaded was replaced by a general description of the incident (and its status as a war crime). But I was confused to see that you [ reinstated] the material in question, reverting your own revert. Can you help me understand what was going on here? I don't want to get involved in an edit war, but to me it seems pretty "cut and dried" that the IP's changes simply do not belong in this particular article — and, indeed, some would say the removal of directly relevant material (along with appropriate references) might amount to vandalism. Just in case there is something else going on here that I'm failing to notice, I'd be grateful for your input. Thanks. — Rich wales 15:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, got your message. I reverted my rollback because at the time I clicked on rollback in error. I normally revert vandalism, but only where it is obvious. I don't know enough about this subject and meant to go and check other recent changes, clicked on rollback, realised my 'mistake' and then rolled back my edit. Apologies if I caused any confusion. Denisarona (talk) 06:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I understand your perspective.  As for whether the IP editor's work is vandalism or a content dispute, I would say it is probably a misguided content dispute, and that his changes do need to be reverted (albeit with an explanation in each case).  In addition to my explaining in my own edit summaries why I've reverted his changes, I've also commented both on the article's talk page and on the IP address's talk page (hopefully he will notice at least one of these things).  If, despite all this, the IP doggedly sticks to his position (or perhaps even refuses to acknowledge any discussion on the matter at all) and continues to insist on making the same change, it will IMO definitely cross the line into disruptive editing — even if not strictly vandalism — and stronger measures may be necessary to put a stop to it — especially since there is an ArbCom ruling in effect (WP:ARBMAC) which covers disruptive editing on any topic related to the Balkans, anywhere in Wikipedia.  I'm not really looking forward to having to escalate the process further; hopefully the IP has understood the point by now.  —  Rich wales 06:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. Normally I tread warily when checking articles related to e.g. the Balkans or Islam, as there seems to be a tendency to initiate edit wars due to differing POVs. Anyway, thanks for your help & insight. Regards Denisarona (talk) 08:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

One Major Single Source & POV
Reference to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 120(Defence.lk), I have added the Tags "Single Source" and "POV" on Lies Agreed Upon.

Since you are involved on the above discussion, please discuss further on regarding the Tags added and the reliability of the content on Wikipedia based on the single major source.Sudar123 (talk) 20:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Chernobyl after the disaster
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Chernobyl after the disaster. 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) 12:15, 8 May 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) 14:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Mount Salak Sukhoi Superjet 100 crash
(copied from 's talk page)

Hi. The DYK hook you proposed for this article — "... that have crushed Sukhoi Super Jet 100 have a permit to descent of the plane to 1,800 m in the area where there was a 2,000 m tall Salak mountain?" — is seriously ungrammatical and, in my opinion, stands no chance at all of being accepted in its current form. Can I, perhaps, help you rephrase this hook into acceptable English? If so, please try to explain in some more detail exactly what you are trying to say. — Rich wales 00:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes of course, you can rephrase it. Super Jet 100 have a permit from the air traffic controller in the airport, to descent of (or go down) the plane to 1,800 metres right?. and there is a 2000m tall mountain, right? so what is the alternative hook? &#42;Annas* (talk) 00:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Possibly something like this: "... that the Russian Sukhoi SSJ-100 aircraft which crashed in Indonesia on May 9 had been given clearance to descend to 6,000 feet (1,800 meters), even though it was flying near a mountain that was over 7,200 feet (2,200 meters) high?"  —  Rich wales 04:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thats good, but I withdraw from DYK nomination as the article has been shown in the news content at the wikipedia main page. so it is ineligible for nomination &#42;Annas* (talk) 04:55, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit fix
Thanks for fixing my mistake in the NBCC article. I'm currently in a parking garage waiting for a family member and editing from my iPhone. It's hard for my damn thumbs and eyes to edit from this damn thing. Dave Dial (talk) 19:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Calvin's Case
Carabinieri (talk) 08:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Adding "stb" to "auto archiving notice" template??
(copied from 's talk page)

Hi. It appears that you [ added] some code to the Auto archiving notice template that automatically includes an stb (skip to bottom) to the page. I do see there is a new "nostb" parameter to disable this addition, but I'm concerned because this change was unexpected, not discussed beforehand at all as far as I can tell, and the Auto archiving notice template seems like a very counterintuitive place to put such a thing. It took me at least half an hour of searching through all the templates that were being transcluded into my talk page before I finally managed to find your addition (and discover how to disable it, because I already have "top icons" on my talk page and do not want these to be stomped on by the new "skip to" links). I would strongly recommend removing this new feature from the Auto archiving notice template until such time (if ever) that a discussion results in a broader consensus to add it. — Rich wales 01:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I was debating which template would most commonly appear on discussion pages that became long, ie. where "skip to" links would be useful. Auto archiving notice seemed like the one. I knew it would likely piss someone off who was looking for what caused the links, but I didn't know where to post the change. Looking back I guess one of the village pump pages would've been good; although I also didn't want to start a whole big debate about such a tiny thing. People tend to get twitchy and closedminded about broad changes and that often blocks progress. I don't care enough about it at the moment to go through the convincing that'll be necessary. I've done it before and have a good chance at winning, but in the meantime it takes up a lot of time and blood pressure. So I'll leave it up to whoever reverts the change. If you want to, feel free. Or if you don't want to do it yourself and would rather someone else do it, just announce the change on VP and someone will likely revert it for you.  Equazcion  ( talk )  02:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for replying so quickly. I went ahead and reverted your change to the template.  I understand something like this might be useful, but I also feel strongly that a highly visible change of this sort needs to be discussed beforehand and supported by a credible consensus before being implemented.  If this does get added back, I would propose that the default should be to have it disabled, and that a parameter (stb=yes or nostb=no) should be required in order to enable it.  —  Rich wales 02:18, 25 May 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) 22:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)