User talk:Ricky81682/Archive 10

i put 131 crores based on andhraboxoffice report...go n visit the page

= July 2015 =

Jahlil Okafor
You reverted the article back way too far. The trimming I did had support. Please review the page history and talk page and see the time stamps. I had it down to about 70kB all before TonyTheTiger started crying about his photos. Also note there is ZERO consensus from any other editors on that page or on the Talk that support anything he says, but he keeps claiming he has it. Literally the words on the Talk Page (which TTT claims he never saw but he himself started) say "consensus is strongly on [my] side". I don't care, but you went too far, the article was pared down for almost a week before TTT started an edit war. I made substantial and thoughtful parings, see Edit Summaries left at each one. Please consider the absurd length and the glut of photos in the same area, which, by the way is about high school. What is gained by a bunch of arms in the air near a rim, or Okafor standing around. How do they help the article? JesseRafe (talk) 03:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The discussion was incoherent. It only listed that June version. That was the one I presumed people looked at. Tony's version was this so I'll presume he agrees with them as well. I don't really care, I just wanted to resolve and regardless of whether you agree with him or not, the bare minimum you could have done was (a) ask for it to be moved to Talk:Jahlil Okafor where it really belongs and discuss it there or (b) remark about those edits and provide a version that you want on the page where there's actual discussion, not just edit warring around it from both of you. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:52, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I did talk about it on the Talk Page. And I did, in Edit Summaries, mention the Talk Page again and again. Maybe a dozen times. I also had actual, not imaginary, consensus. I don't know which one TTT agrees with, but I assure it's one nobody else would enjoy. This one is fine, I thank you. JesseRafe (talk) 04:19, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Edit summaries and on the talk page are fine and I agree with you but nothing in the actual discussion (which again I had no clue why it was WT:NBA but it was). I'm not here to solve a puzzle of what the consensus is. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

CFD on church councils accepted by Protestants
Hi, thanks for closing the oldest CFD. For info, I have done the purging that was suggested, and clarified the explanations Category:Church councils accepted by Protestantism and Category:Calvinist councils and synods. – Fayenatic  L ondon 10:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Was it really that old? I have no idea why it would have gotten ignored that long, it's not clear but then again I'm never one for the re-listing and no consensus results. I'd rather make a decision and get raked over the coals at DRV than sit on the sidelines. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yup, WP:CFDAC lists the daily logs awaiting closure. Feel free to update that list after closing old CFDs as a housekeeping task, although it's not as important as closure and implementation. – Fayenatic  L ondon 10:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

And now thank you for finding a consensus at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_1! I was about to post that on an admin noticeboard. – Fayenatic  L ondon 10:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That was an ugly one. I think I have about 4900 pages in terms of categories to removed CFD notices and category talk pages that need Old CFD notices. Plus I have a list of about 30 more categories that need listing to be moved as well. There's a reason some of those linger. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Use WP:CFDWR to remove notices on Kept categories. I suggest only putting talk page notices on selected categories at the top of important sections of the hierarchy. – Fayenatic  L ondon 11:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You seem to have caught most things with your follow-up housekeeping, what a job, well done! The old continent categories still contained the stub categories, and had incoming links from Parishes categories; I think I have fixed those now, but it might be worth doing another check on the old categories de-listed here. – Fayenatic  L ondon 11:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Disestablishment and establishments categories
Hi, Ricky81682, I was going through the list of red link categories and found that many of them were on categories you created regarding establishments and disestablishment by century and country. There are a lot of them and seem to be a result of a template you are using. See Database reports/Categories categorized in red-linked categories/5 for a list of some of these red link categories. When creating these specific categories could you take a moment and create the parent category to eliminate red link, nonexistant assigned categories? Or adjust the template so it does not automatically assign certain categories to every page it is placed on? Thanks in advance for looking into this. Liz Read! Talk! 09:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok, I try to do them in sets. I'm currently running through the Portuguese Empire from the bottom up (I just finished the Spanish Empire). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Dubs Boy
Hi Ricky, I saw your block of User:Text Julian and I'm wondering if you're working at the Talk:Derry page as a sysop? There's a long term problem with British Nationalist & Irish Nationalist SPAs harassing one another (and abusing multiple accounts). One user who has had long term problem with collegiality is DubsBoy. I warned this user at least once a year ago regarding WP:ASPERSIONS with respect specifically to User:HighKing (an editor I topic banned in the "British isles" area). It seems that Dubsboy is at it again. The first two diffs are insidious because they infer HighKing is banned from Talk:Derry (but he isn't he's banned from adding/removing the term "British Isles" - see WP:GS/BI) but all 4 are inappropriate. Dubsboy is trying to use this as a stick to beat HK with and like Text Julian seems to be in full "battle" mode in that RFC on Talk:Derry. Although these incidents are problematic I'm not sure they're actionable (even in an area under AC/DS like WP:TROUBLES), so if you have a perspective on this I'd welcome your views. My concern is that both sides are trying to use procedure/policy to beat the other-- Cailil  talk 13:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * With all this in mind a read of their full page before they blanked it is useful-- Cailil  talk 13:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not working it in that way. Once I may a vote there, I don't think I could be considered impartial. However, this topic has been discussed at ARBCOM at Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles with numerous sanctions. These types of disputes aren't new. Enforcement could be requested at ANI if people keep the discussion on point (namely whether the RFC is just a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT) or at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem Ricky - I've been patrolling WP:TROUBLES on and off for years as an admin but I'm out of the loop for the last 6-8 months and thought you might have had a better picture of the current situation - but no worries-- Cailil  talk 12:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

singles certified by the Australian Recording Industry Association
Hi, why on earth would you delete the Australian certification category pages but keep such pages for the United Kingdom and New Zealand? It doesn't make any sense, the Australian recording Industry Association is just as official as any other music market. I think we as Wikipedians should either revert what you have done, or proceed in deleting ALL certification category pages (NOT just AUSTRALIAN). It comes across as culturally insensitive to delete the certification category pages for only one country, as if you believe its certifications to be inferior to another's. Neddy1234 (talk) 14:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * What page are you talking about? I do hundreds of deletions and I can't figure out what you're talking about. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There was a discussion here if that's what you mean. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The verdict was to delete ALL certification category pages, not just Australian. You targeted the Australian music market, which is not fair. Neddy1234 (talk) 15:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * User:DexDor only listed the Australian ones. It would be absurd for me to go out and just delete a ton more if people weren't even aware of the discussions. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

User FifthAve101
Hi Ricky, On 21 July you blocked FifthAve101 from editing for a week. On 22 July a new account appeared, named KeepCalm99, that follows the exact same editing pattern: adding unreferenced transfer speculation on football related articles (here, here he readded his unreferenced speculation after it was reverted by another user, here he set the player's career as finished for the club although there is only speculation that his contract will be terminated, here he also set the player's career for PAOK as finished although there is only speculation hihis contract will be termainated). Could there be any investigation on this account, to see if it is a sockpuppet of FifthAve101? Is there a formal procedure I should follow for this to happen. Thank you. Hansi667 (Neighbor Of The Beast) a penny for your thoughts? 10:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It looks very similar but this kind of editing is fairly common in my review (a lot of sport fans just come to google their favorite players and change things) but it's familiar enough that it may be worth a report at WP:SPI. I can't immediately tell if its the same players or the same team but there's an clear inactivity between the two of them. However I'll give the editor a final warning about it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Highest grossing Indian films
Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Marchoctober (talk) 06:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

Marchoctober (talk) 06:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I've been here for ten years. You don't need to template spam me to make your point. Are you actually going to admit that your edit summary was misleading as hell and a sneaky attempt to win over the dispute? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Baahubali is a Telugu movie
To the person who is saying it is removed from tamil version, who dubbed the voice of telugu hero prabhas in the tamil dubbed version. You will be surprised to know it was Tamil actor Surya who DUBBED the voice for prabhas. Does this not make it a dubbed film. Never thought Tamils will stoop to this level of taking credit for someone else film. A film is decided on which industry produced it. It is Telugu film industry which produced and presented the film.I can quote several references from leading news agencies. Forbes,Guardian,BBC, CNN to name a few here. Admins have to interfere in this matter as wrong information is being spread in wikipedia.

Here is the trusted Guardian Site, where it states it is a Telugu film dubbed into Tamil (Actually it is also made in Tamil to evade Tax from Tamil Nadu). People please give due credit to Telugu and stop being cheap and taking the credit for the work that has nothing to do with Tamil http://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/jul/12/baahubali-the-beginning-review-fantastic-bang-for-your-buck-in-most-expensive-indian-movie-ever-made

Also they are including Telugu version collections in Tamil version which didn't even gross 50 crores from entire India and rest of the world in Tamil version and also mentioning it is bilingual. I never thought Tamil will stoop to this level of taking credit for someone else film.

All the official trade analysts and sources mention the official gross figures and Tamil trade analysts Sreedhar Pillai and Ramesh Laus officially stated the above box-office figures of Tamil version.

First time i'm seeing a movie which even didn't gross one-third Rs 50 crore(15%) of total collections in its original Tamil version is included in the list of Rs 416 crores gross that too by cheating and fooling people by including Rs 350 crores gross of Telugu version in Tamil versions. so you should not include in Tamil list. I ask why are you including Telugu movie version gross collections into Tamil version gross list. If you want Baahubali movie in Tamil list then add it by only mentioning just Rs 50 crores gross of only Tamil version itself. -Padukati Raju


 * Take it to Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_Indian_films. I don't care to argue it here. If you want it split into industries with grosses only per industry (information that no one has actually produced), good ahead but no one cares to do that. The pages on American films that get dubbed are classified as "American" films with overall grosses not whatever think you want. If you have sources provide them on the talk page. If you continue to refuse to discuss it and just edit war to get your version, you're going to find yourself blocked. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

who said you that the previous information that no one has actually produced. just you want to include in Tamil list. so don't talk non-sense and rubbish. every one is publishing the different versions gross every day. if you want check their social pages. -padukati raju


 * First, please review WP:SIG. You need to include a link in your signature for ease of use. People have been blocked for refusing to do that. Second, do you have reliable sources about the grosses for each film in Tamil language, Telugu language or the other various languages? And why should I care? Do you really think we should only list the Telugu industry numbers alone and not the overall sources or is it just for your personal annoyance about including the Tamil language. You're the one who spouted the "not even one-third" is in whatever version and saying that the "trade analysts" support your view so post that material and I'd drop the issue. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Reconsider pre-1971 "Bangladesh" categories
Your recent creation of categories: feels very odd for a country that didn't exist until 1971, rather like creating a Category:16th century in the United States. There are cases where scholars commonly use a modern country name as a shorthand - for example India for the Indian sub-continent or Italy for the Italian peninsula - but nothing similar normally happens with Bangladesh. If you feel it necessary to be more specific than "... in India", then you might create categories "... in Bengal", but please reconsider the creation of Bangladesh categories for periods prior to 1971. Worldbruce (talk) 03:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Category:14th century in Bangladesh
 * Category:14th-century disestablishments in Bangladesh
 * Category:1320s disestablishments in Bangladesh‎
 * All that chaos is related to this inclusion. There's been discussions at CFD in both directions to me about whether we should be using the current location (a minority view) or the one at that time. In retrospect, perhaps delete all those (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan) and replace it with a 1290 establishments in Asia? Probably better to create a 1290 establishments in the Khilji dynasty (in the Asia category and establishments in Bangladesh's centuries) but I don't know if there's much that can be added beyond establishment and disestablishment. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that "... in the Khilji dynasty" would be a category in search of a purpose. I'm not familiar enough with Afghanistan and how reliable sources usually classify events that took place within its present-day borders to offer an opinion on it. India might be okay. It's often used loosely to refer to the whole Indian subcontinent at least as far back as the Indus Valley Civilization. WikiProject India might have a more definite recommendation.
 * Searching past CFD discussions for "Bangladesh", the only one I found on point is Categories for discussion/Log/2013 May 30. I strongly agree with the tenor of that discussion, that using modern concepts like Bangladesh or Pakistan in connection with ancient history would make no sense. Replacing with "... in Asia" would be safe. Worldbruce (talk) 07:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, all done. You're probably right. I'll go and delete the now empty pages if I created them (or list for CFD otherwise). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

list of highest grossing indian films
Ricky Sir, you have not yet updated the gross collections of bajrangi bhaijaan it crossed 450cr mark check on this issue and solve it,the bajrangi bhaijaan should be in third place Basheer1995 (talk) 10:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure? The only mention is at Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_Indian_films and that had no source. Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_Indian_films cites this blog post which cites Wikipedia for 437. If you have a reliable source for 450 for Bajrangi, I'll update it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I want you to visit indicine collections page sir it will be updated everyday in that website it was mentioned the overall collections of BB as 456 cr Basheer1995 (talk) 10:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Sir you mentioned it as 413 cr you check and update it sir Basheer1995 (talk) 10:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Look, I'm not trying to be a jerk but just post the URL for me. If you want an update, put in a little effort when asking for it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

http://www.indicine.com/movies/bollywood/bajrangi-bhaijaan-2nd-weekend-box-office-collections/


 * Please review WP:BLOGS. There's no indication of who "Indicine Team" is and the website has zero identification or other evidence that it looks like a reliable source as defined at Verifiability. Wikipedia is not for unverified speculation and it's not for a daily play-by-play of the film's results. I'd rather we wait six months and post legitimate, verified results than speculation based off inadequate sources. If you disagree with me about using Indicine.com, then discuss it at the article talk page and if there's consensus overriding me, someone else will do the edit for you. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry sir if i hearted you on this topic because yesterday i have seen it as 437 cr but now it is appeared as 413 cr i will follow daily this page and i bookmarked it also 106.220.209.106 (talk) 10:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The 437 was from this page and that page referenced Wikipedia. The page that was the source (it's not ideal) said 420 though and NeilN put 413 here following Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_Indian_films. The Guardian was wrong to cite Wikipedia if we aren't accurate in what we are writing. This is why it's more important that we be right to good sources rather than just anything (because it does picked up). I hope you get encouraged to edit elsewhere here, there's a lot to do. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

list of highest grossing indian films
Ok Sir, when and where and what you will be change it's up to you we are just visitors you are the rulers Basheer1995 (talk) 10:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Post it on the talk page and see if you can convince someone else to do it. Everyone is a volunteer here but these policies have been built up here for a reason. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

list of highest grossing indian films
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bajrangi_Bhaijaan Basheer1995 (talk) 11:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Great. I removed the same indicine link and posted a note on the talk page about it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Your box office information is totally wrong
If don't know about the proper information, then please don't try to make fake update over here ... And where did u find that bahubali got 450 core from box office ? Ah. First of learn about the difference between net collection and other share collection. When calculate gross of a filim, distribution share and other taxes will not be added... And try to update genuine information.. And don't make others fool by updating such nonsense Nidhinomar (talk) 15:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * According to, "Prabhas' latest outing "Baahubali - the Beginning" (Bahubali) has done superb collection at the worldwide box office in its third weekend and has crossed the mark of Rs 450 crore in 17 days." It seems like it crossed 450 to me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Fake Box Office Entries In Bajrangi Bhaijaan Page
Sir, There have been so many fake entries in Bajrangi Bhaijaan Page regarding Box office collections.... Authentic News Media based on Taran Adarsh Reports Reported that Bajrangi Bhaijaan Made 250 Crores Domestic Gross + 115 Crores Overseas Gross.. Sums up to 365 Crores.. But there has been fake entries like 470 Crores /400 Crores on Bajrangi Bhaijaan and Top Ten Highest Grossing Indian Films.. Kindly Change them and lock the pages so that Wikipedia won't lose its credibility.. Here is the source for collection reported on 27/07/2015 based on Box Office Analyst And Critic Taran Adarsh.. You can check his Twitter page for more info

http://www.filmibeat.com/bollywood/box-office/2015/bajrangi-bhaijaan-10-days-second-weekend-box-office-collection-192097.html Santhoshlee1 (talk) 16:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * That's a source that quotes the film distributor who says that the 10 days results in India was just 244. That confirms 300 in India which excludes all overseas markets. This source confirms over 225 in India and goes to 400, And no a random twitter page is not going to qualify as a reliable source. Anyone can call themselves a "box office analyst" and start a twitter feed, that doesn't confirm anything. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

MFD Template:Shrubbery

 * Bad, bad move. Actively in use (65 links).  An important policy point which is often referred to.  A move to WP namespace with a redirect would have been fine.  Outright deletion?...?
 * I have listed at deletion review. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought you are supposed to put forth a little effort in talking with the closer before listing it for DRV but whatever. Well, (a) nobody brought that at the TFD and I'm not a super-voting ignore-all-rules in favor of "it's being used" kind of guy [which isn't a particular reason for the template to be kept] and (b) as I stated this could be re-created at the WP:SHRUBBERY if someone wanted to actually make the same point (most of Category:Wikipedia humor are essays not templates) and its use was basically a way to shortcut around creating an humor essay page. I substituted all translucations so if someone just created the WP page, and redirected the template the other way, we'll all done here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I am happy with recreating it as WP:SHRUBBERY and a redirect on the template, will make that an official DRV suggestion to just do that and close. Thanks...  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Btw, I am sorry for the timing on taking it to DRV first. Did not mean to be that grumpy.  I have a couple of active nutcases I am having to deal with, probably made me less collegial with this than I should have been, but that's not an excuse.  I am sorry.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * See above on this page. I have a couple of well-wishers who really, really care about box office revenues for a couple of Indian movies. So, are we done? Do we need the DRV? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I did the move and noted on DRV. If you would like to close the DRV and call it done, that's fine.  Sorry to have bothered you.  Hope your day goes better.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Bajrangi Bhaijaan Box Office
Sir, This is reported just today by An Authentic Source it clearly explains the total Gross which didn't exceed 400.. Not even one Authentic Newspaper Or Channel Said it crossed 400.. Here is the Link.. Kindly check it http://m.ibtimes.co.in/bajrangi-bhaijaan-worldwide-box-office-collection-beats-chennai-express-baahubali-salman-overseas-640840 Santhoshlee1 (talk) 04:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/FBReader
Hi Ricky81682. I don't see a consensus for a merge at Articles for deletion/FBReader. Specifically, I don't see any support in the discussion for discounting 's sources from Linux Insider and Linux Magazine: "Removing that, we have a list of features based off two reviews both of which only re-hash the same information that can be placed in a mention at the List of E-book readers page." Would you revise your close to "no consensus"? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I spent close to half an hour reviewing each and every single source provided and no, the consensus seemed clear to me; it was much closer to delete when reviewing policy arguments versus those who pointing to the volume of sources while ignoring their quality or those were arguing for the article based on a greater purpose (or arguing that there is a systemic bias [which there may be] against finding sources for this type of software but that should be a reason to ignore the policies) but that is not a reason to keep that particular article. Those who simply yell support or complain and attack the nominator and everyone else without good policy grounds are discounted for a reason. And marking it as no consensus which is a default to keep does not solve the actual issue, namely that, absent two reviews of the product itself, there are no significant coverage found in independent reliable sources of the subject. The nominator simply supported delete stating that there were concerns about notability on its own, without providing much else. LaMona was the main commenter there who likewise spent time reviewing the sources: there was a support for a merger to List of E-book software because the two sources contained the same features, which is information that could be kept and merged (in particular, Xb2u7Zjzc32's assertion that this is the only one of two epub readers for Linux) but that alone (particularly since Xb2u7Zjzc32's assertion has no reliable source behind it) would not justify keeping the entire stub of an article about its features. If there's no material worthy of being merged, then this is a deletion by redirection situation which is the same difference but not the way the discussion went. Again, looking over the full history of this article, the article was created, prodded and deleted, restored and brought back and the only response the article creator had was claiming that the nominator was trying to "mislead with untruth" (a nomination that was literally "expired PROD but restored and no new sources were added") and then throwing up volumes of links at everyone. User:dsprc admits that there does not exist the reliable source in the manner we require but basically asks us to ignore that because of advocacy reasons which is not a good policy ground, User:Dougmerritt just pointed again the volume of sources and started attacking everyone in a borderline uncivil manner which is not a reasoned policy-based discussion on the issue. So, unless there's more, you can probably go ahead and take it to DRV and the fighting will be anew. Thanks! -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your detailed explanation, thank you! I've taken this to Deletion review/Log/2015 July 30 for input from the wider community. Cunard (talk) 05:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Bajrangi Bhaijaan Fake Collections
They are not using poor source.. They are using Fake source.. It's Beyond Logic That they are increasing the number without any proper logic. I request you.. Until and unless you get the proper source that it crossed 400. Use this source and edit it to whatever the source says.. And plz kindly protect the page.. Don't support those people.. I might have entered wrong source but I didn't Vandalize. Many 3rd class media news papers and channels using this Wikipedia article as Main source and spreading fake news.. This Is a serious issue and a question about the credibility of Wikipedia. Here is the source.. Kindly protect the page.. And enter facts..

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/bajrangi-bhaijaan-box-office-collection-salman-khan-film-rs-350-crore-blockbuster-now-kabir-khan-baahubali-competition-collections-money-earnings-ss-rajamouli-prabhas-anushka-shetty/1/454605.html

http://m.ibtimes.co.in/bajrangi-bhaijaan-worldwide-box-office-collection-beats-chennai-express-baahubali-salman-overseas-640840 Santhoshlee1 (talk) 12:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

COI work
Hi -- You have gotten involved in the ANI thread about Elvey. I am unhappy to have had to come to ANI at all, and it is sad to watch Elvey self-destruct there. But in any case, I have been looking for feedback on my COI work. I know I have made some mistakes and can come across too stridently at times, but what concerns me the most are the things I don't know that I don't know. If you have any impressions or feedback you would like to give me on my COI work, I would be open to hearing them. If not, that is of course fine too. (I'm asking a few other people who have gotten involved in that thread as well) Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Spot the difference
Hi Ricky, Apologies for bringing this to your page but serious quesion: why do my edits warrant a warning but identical edits do not?


 * vs . Surely both are in breach of WP:ASPERSIONS and not just my own edit?
 * vs ,. So I have been warned for calling Highking a sock, yet Murry1975 received no warning for the same behaviour despite me notifying Cailil
 * How is this considered a personal attack? Are we on wikipedia that pathetic?
 * Here is an edit that Cailil says I am casting WP:ASPERSIONS, an edit that was in response to been accused of being a "block-evading user". That doesn't even make sense. Surely both edits are in breach of WP:ASPERSIONS then and not just my own edit?
 * Here is an edit that Cailil says I am casting WP:ASPERSIONS, an edit that was in response to Scolaire doing a head count of Unionist vs Nationalist editors.That doesn't even make sense. Surely doing a head count of those of a certain political view is casting WP:ASPERSIONS.
 * "trolling" vs . Which edit is worse and why is it only my edit is considered offensive?

I just need to know what I am allowed to do vs what others are allowed to do. That way Ill not get into hot water again.Dubs boy (talk) 16:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I will look into it but you need to drop it. The "he started it first" routine is not helpful. - Ricky81682 (talk) 19:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I have dropped it at Talk:Derry but I honestly need to know the difference here. I feel I've been harshly treated.Dubs boy (talk) 19:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Upon review, first, you'll do better by pointing to other people and not comparing to yourself and not holding a grudge by pointing to past conduct. Note that per block policy, blocks are entirely for prevention, not for punitive. Overall, you need to acknowledge that not everyone who disagrees with you is some activist with an agenda. Some of us may have a neutral opinion but once you start that line of attacks, you them very quickly. The next step is you want to continue this further is probably WP:AE but that's sort of going for mutual assured destruction and it will bite you in response. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Asking if someone is topic-banned is a question about a topic-ban. It's not particularly helpful to the conversation nor relevant but it's not something anyone cares about other than it be a violation that may need punishment.
 * 2) It was wrong for Murray1975 was accuse you of being a sockpuppet and if this wasn't from November, I would have told him to file an SPI or shut up. Luckily, Sockpuppet_investigations/Factocop/Archive was filed (months later, I admit) and was warned for being disruptive for removing your comments which was Murray's last edit. There's nothing preventive to do now.
 * 3) You're insulting the editor personally but the real question is, do you think that actually helps convince others?
 * 4) "What are you smokin'?" is an attack, not a big one but not the point here. You need to not take the bait. You could have easily made your point by saying "I'm not a sock, if you think I am take it to SPI" and bring up the April Factocop decision.
 * 5) Yes because you're making assumptions that those who voted a particular way. It's precisely the kind of WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality that's not wanted here and is another example of you failing to assume good faith on everyone.
 * 6) Again, it's the "you must be X if you think this way on the RFC." That's the problem, that's issue, that's the kind that'll get you topic banned.


 * It still doesn't explain why Cailil took no action against Murry1975 yet gave me a warning for the same conduct. If someone calls me a sock, Im not going to respond with pleasantries especially knowing now that no action will taken against that user. So its a lose lose situation for me. I do feel like users on wikipedia are very easy to offend. Very. If I can't be sarcastic then where is the fun in that? I understand that not everyone is an activist at Talk:Derry and I don't think I've ever used those words. Having been on wikipedia for a few years its very hard to assume good faith in the Troubles dispute when there are so many keyboard warriors though. Rest assured that even the slightest sense of barb directed at me in the future from any user will be reported at ANI, rather than reply to them. thanksDubs boy (talk) 14:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not Cailil so I don't know why. I'm telling you my opinion and that's the end of it. I'd drop it and move on if I were you. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * So by his non action he essentially gave me a license to behave in the same manner, then wraps me around the wrist for doing just that. If its not bias then its incompetence. This is the end. goodnight.Dubs boy (talk) 04:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No, that's a terrible argument. That's precisely a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality that will not appropriate here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I tried waving the white flag along time ago. Cailil continued to pursue me for petty crimes while allowing others to to do the same. If I have a Battlegound mentality(another WP: branded about for petty little), its because I have been harassed to the nth degree.Dubs boy (talk) 14:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Bajrangi bhaijaan collections are wrongly quoted as 400cr as it is on the verge of 500cr
Bajrangi bhaijaan collections are shown as 400cr where as it is going to touch 500cr in two weeks... Please update the list here I am attaching the most reliable source which is followed by many critics.. So please update the list


 * //www.boxofficeindia.com/Details/art_detail/bajrangibhaijaanclosinginon500croreworldwide#.VbonXcu3TqB Salmanaamir (talk) 13:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Please bring it up at the article talk page. My talk page isn't the best place for these requests. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Bajrangi bhaijan collection is totally wrong
Who the idiot are you.. If you don't know about proper information please don't try for a updates. When then whole media is saying bajrangi is cosser to 500 cores .. Still why are you editing it to 400 core. do you have any proof of it. This filim collected 264 cores from domestic box office and 110 cores from international .. And other entertainment tax etc is 100 cores. And then the filim's total collection is above 470+ core.. Then why are still editing it to 400 core Don't cheet others by updating fake information .Nidhinomar (talk) 17:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * You can suggest a reliable source at Talk:Bajrangi Bhaijaan. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material not on everyone else to cater to your personal beliefs. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

O
Hi, thanks for quickly stepping in. Might you also delete this unnecessary page?--Mihai (talk) 06:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Chinesemusicfan
I think I've managed to persuade this contributor to do things our way - could you take a look at his talk page and then unblock him if you think it is appropriate? AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Evidently I was mistaken - the promise to create a draft and submit it before creating the article lasted all of 2 1/2 hours. See the ANI thread for my comments: AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, reblocks are cheap and we do assume good faith. A translation of the Turkish page shows that it's got a similar notice about a lack of reliable sources so I suspect this is more of a promotional issue than this "translation" line they were trying to pull. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

= August 2015 =

Bajrangi bhaijaan collection
Acc.to koimoi Bajrangi Bhaijaan showed a drop on its 2nd Thursday, as it raked in 6.03 crores at the Domestic Box Office. The film’s 14 days nett India total now stands at 272.25 crores at the Box Office, while its gross collection comes to 367.53 crores.

This Salman Khan starrer has made a collection of $ 22.00 million (140.80 crores) from the Overseas.... The film’s total worldwide gross earnings now stands at 508 crores, which is Bollywood’s 2nd film to have entered the ’500 crore’ club.

Though it won’t be much difficult for Bajrangi Bhaijaan to beat Dhoom 3‘s worldwide total of 542 crores, it seems next to impossible for the film to surpass the collection of PK, which is 1st 700 crore grosser of Bollywood. Ritik Bhat (talk) 04:56, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Admin abuse. Thank you. (This is a procedural notice; I personally think you have nothing to worry about.)  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 00:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No need to worry about this any more; it's been hatted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Highest grossing Indian Movies
When I type "Highest grossing Indian Films" in google, Wikipedia page comes first but it is showing "Highest grossing Tamil films" in the brief description of wikipedia page. Please change the description heading to "Highest grossing Indian Films" and show the list of highest grossing Indian films and not Tamil films.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhuvannalla (talk • contribs) 10:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't control that. You'll have to give it a few days. I suspect that's related to all the mergers we did to include that information. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:48, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Include Bahubali in Highest grossing Telugu films list only
Bahubali is a Telugu movie and some portions of the movie are re-shoot to suit the Tamil audience. How can we list it in Highest Grossing Tamil movies list? If you take the case of Enthiran/Robo, I, Shivaji, etc., lot of portions of the movies are re-shoot to suit Telugu audience. Do we need to include those movies in the list of Highest grossing Telugu movies? These movies are not straight away dubbed versions(Telugu) of original movies(Tamil) but modified to suit Telugu audience. Same is the case with Bahubali. Bahubali is originally a Telugu movie and some portions are re-shoot for Tamil audience. Please remove "Bahubali" from Tamil movies list.

Otherwise, if we show total gross earnings from all languages(including dubbed languages), how can we show them separately as Tamil, Telugu, Hindi or Malayalam movies? If that is the case, please include all the languages in which the movie was released originally including dubbed languages.

If Bahubali is included in the list of highest grossing Tamil movies list, then why wasn't Eega movie included in Tamil list as it was also produced in Tamil along with Telugu version simultaneously? Because it is not in the top of the list? Everyone wants to take credit if we are successful. And why was Eega movie got National Award for Best Feature Film in Telugu even though it is produced simultaneously in Tamil also? So, it is better to include Bahubali only in the Telugu list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhuvannalla (talk • contribs) 12:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Please bring it up at Talk:List of highest-grossing Indian films. I don't know if anyone else brought it up before. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

This doesn't seem like a retired editor
Having gone through the Corvette article I was hoping that Lukeno94 would approve of the changes. I posted a notice on his talk page just in case he checked it in the future. I clearly was mistaken in trying to reach out. Given the recent ANI discussion I thought it was worth it to bring this to your attention. [] Springee (talk) 13:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC) Well I was clearly mistaken in trying to hold out one more olive branch. I will not make that mistake again. In the mean time is it possible to edit the edit justification tags. I think the f word is out of line and I'm not OK with being called a stalker. [], [] Springee (talk) 17:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Re: Kingdom of Pamplona
Hello! The references used in the article are based on those used in the Spanish version of the article. I verified some of the references before including them in the article here, although not all of them. As they were approved over there, I assumed it would be fine to use them here as well. Greetings.--Metroxed (talk) 06:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

List of highest grossing films are wrong
Bajrangi Bhaijaan Box office is 540 Crore but you wrote 400 crore why — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.51.95.203 (talk) 07:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't checked it. I don't recall but it was the last reliable source I think. Please post a request on that article talk page and any admin can change it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

your editing is being discussed at wp:3RRnb
Please see [Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Ricky81682_reported_by_User:Doncram_.28Result:_.29] / wp:3RRNB. -- do ncr  am  00:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The other editor reported me as well to Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. Feel free to pile on there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

highest grossing films list talk page
In highest grossing list talk page i have mentioned support but no one is responding. Support for Telugu was more than that of support for telugu and tamil then why are u not removing baahubali from the tamil list Padukati raju (talk) 05:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

baahubali
It is primarily a Telugu movie and shot in tamil that doesn't mean it is a tamil movie. Here bilingualism is not the issue. while mentioning in the grossing list you should consider production and from which language the film originated not bilingualism. we have 4 instances to classify it as a Telugu movie and to remove from the tamil list. The production is from a Telugu production house and not even single from tamil is involved in it. The story, script, direction, music, cinematography etc... almost entire crew is from Telugu film industry including cast. If we look at the release almost 75% released in Telugu version and (Hindi dubbed version(from Telugu)) and the rest is from others. In the collections almost 80% is from Telugu and Hindi dubbed version.

But to classify it as a tamil film you have only one instance ie. stating it as a bilingual film. For all those who are mentioning baahubali as a bilingual i'm asking is the story, script and direction is from both telugu and tamil directors? not at all It's only from Telugu director and writer alone. Is the production house is from tamil? If you check the gross collections then look how much tamil version has collected nearly 15%. Then why are you including the movie in tamil list by adding other version collections 80% into it although it is not primarily a tamil movie. simply don't understand why r u stating bilingual as a reason. In the gross box office list, will you look at the language or the production and collections? In Hollywood industry if an English movie is also shot in French it is regarded as an hollywood movie not french movie. In the collections it will be listed in english list not in the french list similarly is the case of baahubali it should be included only in telugu list not in tamil. So remove it from tamil list. Padukati raju (talk) 06:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The point is how much "Telugu" is a Telugu film and how much is not and how should we be determining this? Is it the people? So-called "Telugu" producers (does someone who crosses over and does some films in another language count or does it not?) Is it directors? Actors? Where it was produced? Post-production? Based on where it was shot? Based on the gross of the various languages? Wouldn't Hindi or English tend to dominate then? What about all the films at English-language Indian films? These films are shot all over (there is no "English" film industry in India). There's a reason we have Category:American films as separate from Category:English-language films. One is by country and the other is by language (not "industry" but language). Said "English" film (again country so it could be US, UK, Australia, even India) could be also shot in French and thus be both a French language and English language film while being an American/British/Australian/Indian film as well. Here, these are all Indian films, that shouldn't be in dispute. What we need is a rule that makes sense for all films not just one random one that's based on this particular film. Things like one version is lacking compared to the other, the producer only did Tamil for tax reasons, it was bilingual but they only listed themselves for the Telugu version are not objective nor a consistent way to categorize these films. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! My first barnstar! Ten years in the making lol. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

"Unsubmitting" drafts
I'm not sure why you're unsubmitting drafts, but please make sure that you're not subst:-ing the AFC submission/draft tag, as it seriously screws up the page. Drafts shouldn't be unsubmitted except by the person who submitted it. Primefac (talk) 13:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * EDIT: I just realised that you are submitting currently-unsubmitted drafts. However, you still should not be using subst on the template. Primefac (talk) 13:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

−
 * sorry that must be wrong tag. The not submitted tag, is that correct? Else should the pages just be in draft space with no header? I've seen a few that are moves there and I thought there was a right way to do that
 * If you are adding the tag that says "this draft is not yet submitted" then you should use the template I've linked above (as a note, does the same thing). However, what you were entering is, which causes all of the backend code to be pasted onto the page (just check out the history of the pages you recently edited where I fixed things to see that), which makes it very difficult to navigate. From an editing standpoint you've done nothing wrong, as drafts without any AFC tags on it will probably slip by unnoticed for ages. Primefac (talk) 16:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ages are going to be less than Category:Userspace drafts created via the Article Wizard from October 2009 I hope lol. I forgot all these parts around here some days. Submitted tags are submitted but that's the wrong one. Thanks. -- 17:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Ooops. I did not realise that the draft space is exclusively for use by the AFC crowd. I've removed my article from there. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

3RR on List of highest-grossing Indian films
I'm mildly concerned someone will raise WP:3RR on List of highest-grossing Indian films. Given the large number of edits on the page I find myself reverting more than 3 times just in the last hour. WP:3RRNO does not exempt unsourced/poorly-sourced material and I can see someone arguing that this is not "obvious vandalism". Also, I can use my reviewer permissions to revert without explanation as it's not obvious vandalism. I could argue WP:IAR, but figured I should at least raise this concern somewhere. (please ping me if you reply)  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 16:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * please see the recently concluded Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man bearing soem degree of resemblance to what you explain above. Maybe not the help you'd most like to have, but always better to be informed about the odds. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hm... okay. I see how it's related. Still conflicted on how to handle this though. The article does not have many established editors who are familiar with the content concerns of the page watching it... and reviewers are not obligated to verify every piece of info. Any suggests on how to deal with this? (Like, is it possible to have pending changes and autoconfirmed on the page?)  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 17:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The solution may be to go back to full protection. All things considered, ignoring a few users, I think that actually worked in terms of getting the vast vast majority of the article in good shape (of course I'm immensely biased there). The issues are entirely based on a few active films and once those leave the theaters, I imagine the disputes will be resolves much more easily. If we didn't have anything big out there now, it'd be a very stable article. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, realistically I don't think most of those sources (half the article links to the live editing mobile version of the koimoi.com page) aren't going to be gone from here until (a) the Indian cinema task force actually takes it seriously and (b) those pages are eventually blacklisted. I don't think it's a coincidence that certain websites that exist entirely as a .com that confuses people with a legitimate .co.in page are spammed and used heavily here. While it's possible that people really just don't care whether or not a source is legitimate or not because they only care about getting their box office numbers there, I think there's more going on here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Satoshi Nakamura, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Multi-modal. 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) 09:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to move an article that you move-protected in December 2014
Please see Talk:Damián Martínez. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Disruption on Middle Eastern historic categories
Hi, per good faith i assume you are not aware of the disruption you caused, but the creation and re-creation of multiple anachronistic "year in Foo" categories, against long-standing community consensus was unhelpful and confusing - for instance your creation of Category:1st-millennium establishments in Syria (previously deleted) and Category:2nd-century establishments in Syria (already covered by Roman Empire cats). See the decisions over historic categories of Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Turkey,US and Pakistan, etc. Please refrain from recreating anachronistic categories of currently existing countries for early historic periods, unless previous decisions are reversed. Thank you.GreyShark (dibra) 08:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Deletion log
A small point, but shouldn't today's entry in the deletion log for Draft:Edna Marie O'Dowd refer to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Edna Marie O'Dowd (2nd nomination) rather than to the previous Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Edna Marie O'Dowd? --David Biddulph (talk) 09:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

..., especially as the latter was a "keep" decision? --David Biddulph (talk) 09:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes it should. It's automatically pulling from the MFD notice. I didn't notice that it doesn't get the right nomination. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Translational Research (August 14)
Moved to the real creator here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

List of oldest living people
Just so we're on the same page when it comes to these articles, did you delete all pending and unverified entries in the tables in this article in this edit? Or something else? I'm not totally clear on what was done but want to do the same thing for other articles. Thanks! Ca2james (talk) 16:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC) Adding: Based on, I've removed all pending entries from List of supercentenarians who died in 2014 and List of supercentenarians who died in 2015. Most of them had references to newspapers or obituaries which I'd have thought would be fine as a RS. Ca2james (talk) 16:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Loser. Other admins agree with us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.120.167 (talk) 18:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Your edits to List of oldest living people
The RSN discussion only determined through consensus that Table EE is not a reliable source. That does NOT mean that you can just merge verified and unverified cases on List of oldest living people and cut the list to 50. You need to gain consensus on the talk page before doing that. That violates WP:OWN. I will take this to ANI if it continues. Ollie231213 (talk) 19:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As I discussed on the talk page, I merged the remaining names (which I presume had reliable sources) with the GRG verified ones. The 50 cutoff I admit was arbitrary. We can continue our discussion there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Source
Why is this for James Olofintuyi not a reliable source as you say on Articles for deletion/Unverified longevity claims? Seems alright to me, all that needs be verified is that he made the claim, not that he is the claimed age and that source seems to do the trick. No malice, I'm just confused. Gotha &#x262d; Talk 22:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It doesn't seem like the newspaper that reported it did an ounce of work background checking that information. That's their job. That's why the verified/unverified pages seem like nonsense to me. It's a WP:PRIMARY source, and just parroting those accomplishes nothing. If someone claimed that they were a thousand years old, we wouldn't include it as neither the newspaper nor Mr. Olofintuyi himself (he is the source) has no indication that he is a reliable source about his own age. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but I realise the source does not, and cannot, verify that he is 170, as you correctly say. However, the source is cited to verify Mr Olofintuyi claimed to be 170 and the source seems to have done the job in that respect, regardless of the fact it didn't bother trying to find out whether Mr. Olofintuyi's claim itself has any substance. It is of no concern that Mr. Olofintuyi is talking out of his arse, just that he has talked out of it. There's a page about the Yeti, yet no concrete evidence to suggest the creature actually exists. There's a page devoted to Moon landing conspiracy theories, even though they're a load of bollocks. They may not be true, but to some they are fascinating topics and, as such, I believe the articles about unverifiable claims, whether they be about extreme age or cryptozoology, ought to be there. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, that is to say an objective repository of knowledge, which means stating facts without discussing them - it's not a forum or scientific journal - that, to me, really means that it is wiki's job to parrot info (which I'd say was, in this case, from a secondary source and, even so, if it is a primary, it's fine and in accordance with policy, since we're not giving an interpretation of the claim, just stating it). Wiki doesn't need to accomplish anything, if by that you mean proving or disproving, in this case, Mr. Olofintuyi's age claim and not providing the general public with as much information as possible in one easily and freely accessed place. Don't mean to be harsh, but you seem to have misunderstood the reason for the sources on the page in question. Very sorry if I seem abrasive,
 * Gotha &#x262d; Talk 23:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes the theories are true and thus we discuss theories like that at Longevity myths. There are limits to what is wanted here, one being pure WP:TRIVIA, such as "A Mr. Olofintuyi claims to be 170 years old." Longevity_claims reports a woman who is 129, but that is based on the BBC and it even says that no one outside of China believes it. All these levels of chaos between the various articles about the level of legitimacy to each claim is the problem here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it's chaos. Thanks very much for your reply. Sorry for the annoyance I have most likely brought you.
 * Gotha &#x262d; Talk 00:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries. You brought up at AFD. I tried it six months ago and got no consensus so it's not like my views are that obvious or even correct. :P Maybe a merge back may work but we have to cut something if we try to merge all those articles together. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

MfD nomination rationales
Hi Ricky,

I was going to not complain about your excessive tendency to send unimportant things to MfD as long as you helped clear the backlog by closing old discussions. However, could I ask you to try add even one or two words to the nomination so that I or others can review them with some initial information as to the problem. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rpezer/Dubravka Janda for example. There are so many things wrong with that page beyond the three meaningless word you give. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That's fair. I'll add some details about the pages themself. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've started blanking the more obvious ones as you are right on the bureaucracy that creates but I honestly wish there was a better process to deal with the older user drafts (I'd probably mass-move them to draftspace so they exist via redirect and at least have consistent reviews every six months or so). I prefer to add WikiProjects to drafts and my issue is that the alerts system for WikiProjects doesn't really have a "G13 warning system" yet as I imagine articles like that would do better if it was found at the Draft-class Croatian articles. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. MfD is a funny backwater where occassionally people do damage deleting things they don't understand, and sometimes even shenanigans by miscreants.  Obviously, this is not you.


 * For obvious deletions, we have CSD. We succeeded in getting G13 though, a surprisingly involved process despite its apparent obviousness and, in the end, overwhelming support.  There are two missing CSD criteria in my opinion.  One is "old promotional material posted by a non-contributor".  It almost got up.  The other is "Pages written by a non-contributor, BLP-violating and even if fixed has no likelihood of being suitable for inclusion".  But the wording has to be perfect.  A non-contributor is a euphemism for an account that never made a useful contribution to mainspace.  Much userspace junk, like what you have nominated, is made by accounts that made a handful of trivial edits to articles.

Occassionally at MfD we get good mass nominations. If all of the pages have exactly the same deletion rationale, and no one can discover cases included that don't belong in the list, then it works efficiently. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed table structure
I was going to ping you but I decided that the discussion was too long. I've proposed a table structure for the WP:WOP tables here and given rationale for my choices in the subsequent discussion. Would you mind having a look at it and giving your opinion? Thanks. Ca2james (talk) 16:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Vegetative phase change has been accepted
 Vegetative phase change, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  21:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Vegetative_phase_change help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Disambiguation link notification for August 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited International Design Awards, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fast Company. 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) 11:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Further disruption at WOP articles. Thank you. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 02:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Another ANI Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you., The link to the discussion is here: |ANI Discussion Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

FYI, Edit warring HughD
Given your recent involvement with HughD and his last ANI I wanted to notify you about this one. Thanks [] Springee (talk) 18:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Ricky81682, I wanted to ask your opinion on the above complaint. So far it has not received comment from an administrator. Do you think this is a case where things are in discussion in the background? Thanks Springee (talk) 17:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Ricky81682, I saw my edit warring complaint regarding HughD was declined but without comment. I do feel like HughD's confrontational editing style is very disruptive. He is not interested in consensus building and brings a very non-neutral POV to articles he edits. I also find that he tries to be condescending to other editors on talk pages and general makes it difficult to improve articles. I know you have personally seen his style earlier this month. That said, could you offer some thoughts on my my edit waring complaint failed. I understand he didn't violate a 3RR (he stopped at 3 in 24 hours). I also don't believe the pages in question were subject to a 1RR rule. With that in mind do you think my case was off base or did I simply not make it effectively enough. I don't have a history of dealing with editors like this so I find it hard to know which rules to apply when someone seems to be pushing the edge in so many places. Anyway I would be interested in your thoughts/feedback. Thanks Springee (talk) 23:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree on it but you aren't helping yourself either. This is why I hate politics and current events articles. HughD did stay off the topic banned article (even if I don't agree with HughD's description of events). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. I had been watching the ANI against AR and thought that was a very questionable statement.  However, I decided it was best simply to stay out of that one.  What I find difficult is that HughD clearly edits a lot and it's simply more than most could do to keep up with the rapid fire changes.  That might be OK if he was responsive to the concerns and the like of others.  However, you have seen how things work when he disagrees.  It seems he gets his way because most get tired of it and leave or decide its not worth an edit war risk.  It's one thing to disagree with others but I think he takes it to a disruptive level.  I might just have to say that he has one (though the readers of the project may not) and largely write off articles he is involved with.  I did step into "Chicago-Style Politics" (the article) just a bit ago.  An IP came in and made a lot of good edits.  They were quickly removed and a "warning was placed on the IP's talk page.  I think the IP was clearly working in good faith.  I'm not sure why the guy is being given much if any latitude given his history.  But my opinion only counts for me and I think others are willing to over look the behavior because they agree with the POV (I probably have that same flaw to some extent).  Anyway, thanks for your help and thoughts. Springee (talk) 00:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations
If you like you can add this userbox to your collection.

. Buster Seven   Talk  15:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Indian cinema - comment requested
Hi there, this is a form letter. (Aren't you special!) Since you edit around Indian cinema articles, your comments are solicited at this discussion at the Indian cinema task force. The question is: Should box office gross totals be labeled as estimates?

Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

List of Internet forums
I’m contacting active participants on this article to vote “yes” or “no” on this suggested format. [Talk: List of Internet Forums] 72.181.218.181 (talk) 00:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Please don't remove unsourced forums from the list of forums
Regarding your edit here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Internet_forums&diff=678053442&oldid=678053263

This is a list of pages on Wikipedia. It does not need sources for the links to other pages. Please do not remove them.

—Zenexer &#91;talk&#93; 04:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * To clarify: the sources on the linked pages establish notability. If the notability of one of those forums is in question, the article is at risk of being deleted, not just the link.  The link itself doesn't need a reference.  If you feel that any of the forums you removed don't meet the criteria for notability, you should nominate them for deletion.  The links will be removed as part of the cleanup process. —Zenexer &#91;talk&#93; 04:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Username policy question
Thank you for your commitment to our user naming policy. May I ask, how might a username Comeatmebro strike you? A bit battleground perhaps? Might make harmonious editing difficult? Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 04:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No. There is a difference between a general username that is somewhat combative and one in particular that disruptive because it references controversies. In this manner, I question the judgment of any individual who picks a username that combative in an topic that is already subject to a mass of controversy and subject to ARBCOM sanctions, amongst other issues, and whether they can honestly think people aren't going to dismiss their points based on their name alone. However, that's still their choice and rather than wait out the inevitable fighting due to the username and possibly their edits, I blocked their name and as I informed everyone there, wait a bit as I'm sure User:Kochtruth can come up with one other name that doesn't immediately alienate half the audience. You should consider WP:UFAA for any usernames you also find possibly in violation of our policies. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "I question the judgment of any individual who picks a username that combative in an topic that is already subject to a mass of controversy and subject to ARBCOM sanctions" um, how about a new user? might a new editor be unfamiliar with ArbCom? Hugh (talk) 05:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Did the editor exhibit combative behavoir in his brief career of 2 article space and 4 talk space edits? Did anyone object to the editor about their username before your ban? Was the block necessary? Did you ask the editor to change his name and he refused? If he does not come back he will not need a new username. Hugh (talk) 05:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Policy WP:BADNAME recommends not biting newcomers. Can you please explain how you honored this policy in your administrative actions regarding this username? Thank you in advance for honoring your obligation to patiently explain your adminstrative actions to other including non-admins. Hugh (talk) 06:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Policy WP:BADNAME also recommends talking to the user. I can find no record of anyone asking this new user about their username. It was not reported by anyone. Did you simply ask them about it before your ban? Hugh (talk) 06:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Do you actually care about this? Do you think I'm just an idiot that going to ignore your conduct at AE if you get in an argument with me about whether or not I jumped through enough bureaucratic hoops for a user named "Kochtruth"? It's not different than an editor who comes here with a name that's a corporation or something else wrong: they get indefinitely blocked, they get told to pick a new name, I provided a link to how to choose one. It doesn't seem like they needed the sandbox page as they want to include that text directly into the article itself (not create a spin-off) but whatever, I told them ask me and I'll restore it (someone else will probably immediately delete it but I'm not touching the content disputes here). As I told everyone at the talk page, give it some time. Most people respond within 5 minutes with some name (even a single of random letters, I don't care). It's not difficult, just pick something else where your name won't cause a fight on day one. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:23, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not think you are an idiot. Is politely asking a new editor to change their name as per WP:BADNAME a "bureaucratic hoop" now? To me the your lack of engagement with the editor prior to your block, and the completely unnecessary deletion of his sandbox, suggests perhaps a certain level of passion brought to slapping down our new colleague. Hugh (talk) 20:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "I'm not touching the content disputes here" May I respectfully observe, your reluctance toward content is totally understandable but may not be serving you well. Being an admin is hard, it's a lot of work. May I observe, I hope you will agree, we do not know each other well, but I detect frustration in your recent talk posts. You have these powers and you want to help. You try to help and your reward is you get written up at a board. You are getting it from many angles at once. Nonadmins are egging you on to ban. You are trying to help, but you are passing judgement on issues that are clearly the intrusion of content issues on to noticeboards, without taking the time to understand the content issues. For example, a new section added to a contentious article, that has to be slapped down, or, look at all those diffs, this editor has to be a problem, I'm going to put an end to this right now. What do you think? Hugh (talk) 20:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Request reconsideration of enforcement action
Please reconsider your topic ban. It's over the top. I encouraged a editor new to Wikipedia and new to an article to elaborate his initial contribution with secondary and tertiary sources. I did not realize I could be banned for that. I did not recognize the username as any more aggressive than those I see every day, and I did not realize I had an obligation to report possibly non-compliant usernames promptly under threat of topic ban. Please specify the policy or behavior guideline which is the basis for your decision. I believe I have a right to know exactly what I am being banned for I and believe you have an obligation to explain yourself. Hugh (talk) 05:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * comment, revert. Of course removing comments from your own talk page is allowed, but it also shows an unwillingness to do what I advised in my comment. Good call on the topic ban. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * You learn plenty about a person when their back is to the wall. Someone else brought up the nameblock but that was an idiot who only poisoned the well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Under what authority was the topic ban imposed? Reference: Banning_policy. (Note: topic was raised at WER). NE Ent 09:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * User:NE Ent, responded there and see also . -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you're supposed to tell them the basis and how to correctly appeal Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions ... which might avoid the user asking for a review at the wrong forum (e.g. WER). NE Ent 22:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

ANI
You are screwed now. Go to ANI and justify yourself. AGF! AGF! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.176.58.147 (talk) 08:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * You again. Is this an Indian film article? Are we arguing box office results from Friday already? Is this world's oldest people? Did I remember the favorite meal of another 115 year old that pissed you off? Did I delete a draft about your cat from five years ago now? Are you that idiot who's still pissed I blocked you for creating your upcoming rap page across every namespace and moving and moving it? I'm promising myself a break and then I'll go and see what fun you in store for me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:23, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * You lazy SOB. You should do more than just follow my recent contributions. At least go back a day. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Sigh...
New user shows up with a username that is Latin for "truth prevails", making the same points HughD has been making. HughD welcomes the new user. I am not quite ready to say I hear quacking, but the thought did occur to me.

Be that as it may, welcoming new users as soon as they edit the page he was topic-banned from seems like standing with your toes hanging over the line you are not supposed to cross. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Above on this page hours ago for some reason you felt obligated to inform Rick about me deleting content from my talk page, now welcoming? How do you imagine you are helping build our encyclopedia? Hugh (talk) 20:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * My comments here are not meant to be helpful you. You are a disruptive editor who clearly doesn't want my advice. They are meant to encourage and offer support to an administrator who made the correct call in topic-banning you and to give him additional information concerning your continued disruptive behavior. Dealing with people like you can't be easy, and I want Ricky81682 to know how much I appreciate him protecting the encyclopedia from your disruption. Drop the WP:STICK, please, and find some other part of Wikipedia where you can be constructive. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * what's that in your hand, brother? Hugh (talk) 21:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, your WP:BLUDGEON doesn't work here. I am done responding to you. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

...and now HughD has created User:HughD/donorstrust. Donors Trust calls it "a nonprofit donor-advised fund based in Virginia." but User:HughD/donorstrust calls it "a dark-money ATM funding the conservative movement". --Guy Macon (talk) 23:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What is your problem? Are you trying to put me on tilt? How does your comment help build an encyclopedia? Why don't you apply for adminship, with your skills at identifying problems? Hugh (talk) 01:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * --Guy Macon (talk) 06:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * If that's the same user, that's fine with me. Not ideal but a mountain better than Kochtruth. I can restore their sandbox if they want. I specifically checked off that the user was allowed to continue to edit as an IP address and was allowed to create new accounts so good. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

On a related note, I just did a quick Google search to see the connection between Citizens United and the tea party / Koch brothers. The WSJ says "Citizens United—a tea-party group behind the lawsuit that resulted in the Supreme Court striking down decades-old limits on corporate political expenditures" and salon says " This is the legacy of Citizens United: Koch brothers plan to drop $900 million on 2016 elections.".

It looks tea-party / Koch related to me. Another good call. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm an attorney. I read the full decision myself and understand the connection. It permitted an expansive interpretation of the 501(c)(4) which became part of the Obama IRS allegations (due to the overflow of questionable 501(c)(4)s from conservative groups) but it led to the creation of those groups which included the TEA party movement and the Koch brothers. However Talk:Citizens United v. FEC has no ARBCOM warnings of any type so just because I get it doesn't mean people will immediately connect Supreme Court to the tax subsection used to create these organizations. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * HughD at least reverted this but this edit was clearly in violation of the topic ban and was done almost immediately after his topic ban was lifted []. Springee (talk) 02:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, HughD "gets it" now, and we shouldn't fault him for something that he immediately self-reverts. Let's give him some time; it can be very upsetting being topic banned from a topic you care deeply about, especially when you want to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I say give him some time to find other parts of Wikipedia where he can do productive work. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Help me understand
Hello. I am trying to figure out the unblock request. I am assuming the ban referred to is User_talk:HughD.

I am not up on American politics. Can you help me understand how the linked edits at User:HughD/donorstrust and Citizens United v. FEC relate to the topic ban subjects Tea Party movement broadly, Americans for Prosperity, Koch Industries, or the Koch brothers? I am sure it is obvious but it is not evident to me. Chillum 15:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Also I will point that the he did create the content of the page on the prior to the 25th. The edit on the 28th was moving that content to another page. The reason given for the move was to make room in the sandbox for appeal. The copy/paste style of the move may have made this less than evident.

What do you think of this explanation? Do you think these edits by themselves still make a violation? Chillum 15:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I thought it was pretty well established that Citizen's United is a Tea Party group. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Well it is apparently not established enough that either article mentions the other. As a Canadian I find US politics rather boring and I do not keep up with the scandal de jour. To properly review this unblock request I need to know that it was reasonable or not of the blocked user to think that it was not a violation. I have not heard from Ricky yet, but I am suspecting that the fact that the User:HughD/donorstrust looked like new content when it was more like a move may have caused some confusion here. The content of that page appears to be a clear violation. As for the edits to the other page, that needs to be explained to me like I don't watch the US news. Chillum 22:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I see that the draft page edits were not new content. As to the Citizens United decision, I think it may be within the scope of the topic but it's not clear enough that it's worth treating as a violation. I will unblock HughD right now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It looked like new content to me too until the diffs were pointed out to me. Thank you for your helpful response. Chillum 23:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Well it's a copy-and-paste job that's going to create problems later anyways. Should have just moved the page and then started a new sandbox but that's just my two cents. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

The attribution problems with a copy-paste move are pretty much mitigated if there is only a single editor involved and that is the same editor who copy-pasted. The copyright of the material really only requires a history merge if there are multiple authors or if the copy-paster is different than the author. There may be other factors I don't know about though. <b style="color:SaddleBrown">Chillum</b> 23:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Talkback
Paris1127 (talk) 15:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

List of x supercentenarians move request question
Should the lists by historical country (List of supercentenarians from the Nordic countries, List of supercentenarians of the Caribbean) and lists by macroregion (List of supercentenarians born in the Russian Empire, and List of supercentenarians born in Austria-Hungary) and lists by country (List of Australian supercentenarians ... List of supercentenarians from the United States) be included in the requested move? I'm thinking that for consistency, they should be included, but I'm not sure if I should be the one to add them to the list. Thanks. Ca2james (talk) 15:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * if people are going to oppose because it not big enough for the entire structure at one time, let them. It'll then be an opposition that it'll too many pages as once. Generally you get those same types, since it doesn't change an ounce of the actual issue. Do you really think I was going for Africa alone and was goin got leave the rest? Ricky81682 (talk) 16:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh heck no I didn't think you were going to stop at just one! I just didn't know if you wanted to add the other regions ana d countries to this one nomination. Thanks for replying. Ca2james (talk) 00:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I tried an overall suggestion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_World's_Oldest_People regarding the deaths by year (which I thought would at least be somewhat logical to also merge the just random oldest people to notable centarians) but that had a similar issues as the opposing votes here, namely an odd desire that 110 is some criteria that people should care about. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think a) they resist changes and b) they think that the articles should be focused on supercentenarians instead of the oldest people. The latter is probably a result of these articles having been written and maintained by GRG-supporters, GRG-correspondents, and fans of the two groups. All of them have a narrow focus on supercentenarians with almost a religious devotion to their views and they won't or can't see another perspective or adjust their thinking. Add to this that they're all members of either the yahoo group or the invisionfree group (or both), where they can bolster each other's arguments and call for reinforcements without us being able to see it, and the result is that change is very, very hard. Ca2james (talk) 08:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Motion: Longevity
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 22:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Clarify statement
From Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_August_19 "The De Niro sidebar was deleted because it's not just a vote so unless Mitchumch takes all those to DRV and get them all overturned, that discussion and the consensus otherwise supports deletion."  What does "DRV" mean? Thanks. Mitchumch (talk) 07:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Deletion review. It's where to discuss procedurally wrong closes and discussion. If you want to overturn those decisions, you'll need to find a fault in how it was closed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Learned something new. Thanks.  Mitchumch (talk) 01:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)