User talk:Richwales/Archives/2012-09

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page. In this issue: Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->
 * Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
 * Research: The most recent DR data
 * Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
 * Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
 * DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
 * Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
 * Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Family Research Council
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Family Research Council. 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) 16:15, 5 September 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) 00:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion item added to wrong page (not my talk page)
(copied from User talk:SuggestBot)

Hi. The newest "Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot" posting was added incorrectly. Instead of being appended to my talk page, it was appended to a separate page (User:Richwales/Tabs/TalkBanner), which I transclude at the top of my talk page. Any idea why this happened? Can the problem please be fixed? I moved the posting to where it should have been put to begin with, but I don't want to have to keep doing that every time. — Rich wales 01:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that. I had the configuration template in the wrong place.  I've moved it onto my talk page now, so I assume the problem will not reoccur.  —  Rich wales 05:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm of course happy to hear you figured it out, sorry about the confusion it must've caused. Moving the template to your talk page does solve the issue, I checked our system just to be sure that it has picked it up correctly and it has, so next time it should be posted there.  I've also made a note about this problem, it might be possible for us to easily resolve the template transclusions (e.g. that it in your case would resolve to your talk page and not the sub-page).  Thanks for bringing it to my attention and also thanks for using SuggestBot, appreciate it!  Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 18:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * There are a lot of user page / talk page tools being used nowadays that, I assume, were developed in a simpler time when few users had anything more than a simple user page and a simple user talk page. So it didn't really surprise me when I realized that the SuggestBot template would always assume the postings should go on the same page as the template.


 * Along similar lines, I recently discovered (to my dismay) that most userboxes which invoke categories also assume they are always going to be put on a user's main user page (and not on a subpage). Since I realized it would be a hopeless task to get a zillion userbox authors to fix their creations to find the main user page, I ended up shuffling my subpages so as to make my separate userbox page into my main user page!


 * I suppose it's conceivable that someone out there just might be intentionally diverting SuggestBot postings into a separate subpage, rather than putting them in their main user talk page. So you might want to hold off on making that change — possibly check to see where other people are filing their SuggestBot postings, and talk to users who seem to be receiving them into a subpage to see what they really want.  —  Rich wales 19:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * About 20% of our users intentionally put the template somewhere else than their user talk page. When I worked on implementing the support for the template we wanted it to work that way since some users had asked if it was possible to not have them posted on their user talk page.  The only time the posts don't go to the same page is if you put it on your user page, then they end up (not surprisingly) on your user talk page. :)


 * If/when I look into it, I'll only try to figure out a way to handle nested transclusions, e.g. if the SuggestBot template is transcluded on "User:Example/Header", and then that header is transcluded on "User talk:Example" (similar to your set-up). In that case we should resolve the nested transclusion to "User talk:Example" and thus ignore "User:Example/Header".  Not yet sure how feasible it is, will have to look more into it.  Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 14:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

ANI
Thank you for your detailed and thoughtful responses on the Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability thread on ANI, it sums up my thoughts on the dispute. Your comments have been informative, and I hope that Himesh84 listens to your advice on how to constructively edit Wikipedia. You've been particularly amiable and courteous throughout the whole discussion, and I strongly appreciate it.--SGCM (talk)  02:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I apologise. It irritated me that I was accused of being part of a conspiracy when I closed the DRN on the grounds that it was nearing the time when a review was needed and a consensus seemed to have been established. I was brought into the dispute via the DRN as an uninvolved editor. My involvement should have ceased after the DRN was closed, I have never edited any of the Sri Lankan articles prior to the DRN and have no position on the war. My further involvement in the dispute is unnecessary, and I believe that you will better handle it.--SGCM (talk)  05:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to be sure I'm not missing something here — I didn't say or do anything to make you feel I was criticizing you, did I? I certainly did not intend to do any such thing.  —  Rich wales 05:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No. It was nothing that you said, you've been cordial throughout the entire discussion. It was the conspiracy remarks by another editor that prolonged my involvement, and further involvement is unnecessary at this point, given my lack of familiarity with the subject. You've handled the dispute remarkably well, and my remark here only serves to encourage your continued hard work improving the neutrality and balance of the article.--SGCM (talk)  06:16, 18 September 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) 00:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Nostalgia
I know you are not interested any more in this topic area, and am not asking you to return, but if you remember our "intervention-invasion" discussion on Cyprus and would like to see some interesting fact, only for nostalgy, you may take a look at the TP of the "invasion" article. All the best. --E4024 (talk) 10:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know. Good luck with this and related articles.  —  Rich wales 05:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka
I have brought this a week ago to ANI and on the advice of an Admin, one of the editors has taken this issue to the DRN and it was resolved. But User:Himesh84 is constantly pushing his Original Research as a single person. Since you have already involved in the Sri Lanka related issues on defense.lk and Lies Agreed Upon, I need your involvement how to tackle this user who is so adamant to listen others and pushing his Original Research aggressively without heeding the Wikipedia guidelines.Sudar123 (talk) 09:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thanks for bringing this issue to my attention, though I'm not sure if I can really help very much right now.  I note that it's been brought back to WP:ANI, and for the moment, I think that's probably the best place to handle it at the moment.  WP:DRN (as stated in the page's introduction) "is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions" — and my reading of the WP:DRN discussion makes me think that the request did not in fact lead to a consensus and should instead have been closed as failed "because it is unlikely that consensus will be reached".


 * I would point out that, per the edit warring policy, you shouldn't engage in edit warring even if you are convinced that you are in the right and someone else is in the wrong. An uninvolved third party could conceivably conclude here that both you and Himesh84 are equally guilty of edit warring (and, accordingly, could both be at risk of a short-term block to stop further disruption).  It may be better for you to hold off on further reversions of his edits for a while, and see what happens at WP:ANI.  Again, as I understand WP:DRN, it is not a binding process, and editors cannot automatically be blocked for being disruptive solely because they have refused to accept suggestions made at DRN.


 * I'll keep an eye on this situation in case there might be something I can do later. I will emphasize that I don't feel it appropriate for me to become deeply involved in the Sri Lanka situation.  For what it may be worth, I would prefer to see an amicable resolution to the ongoing conflict — which is apparently continuing to simmer under the surface despite the formal end to the civil war — but I don't see any prospect of this happening anytime soon because people on both sides have deeply entrenched views and (what they consider to be) valid grievances which they are unwilling to let go of.  I recognize that a middle-of-the-road position like this is unlikely to endear me to either side in this dispute, but so be it.  —  Rich wales 16:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your advice and the concern. I will wait for the ANI result and won't get involved in Edit Warring hereafter.Sudar123 (talk) 04:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I also replied to your comment. If you feel interest you can comment back --Himesh84 (talk) 10:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I saw your comments at WP:ANI, and the lengthy discussion which followed. I have also seen your latest comments on the article's talk page.  Thank you for alerting me to this debate.  —  Rich wales 15:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I put a reply to your comment in the article talk page. If you interested please comment back --Himesh84 (talk) 07:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I did [ add a comment of my own], a few days ago.  —  Rich wales 16:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Colchians (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Mingrelian


 * Georgian Orthodox Church (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Iveria

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 29 September 2012 (UTC)