User talk:Ronnotel

Prof. Dr. Hammerschmidt-Hummel & the Cobbe portrait
„Also, I'm curious whether you have any relationship, academic, business or otherwise, with Hildegard Hammerschmidt-Hummel. Is this your first WP account, or have you edited in this general area under another user name?“

Sorry that it took so long to post a reply, but some guys have to work for a living.

So, to answer your a bit slighting questions:

Of course I do know the professor, but there is no academic relationship whatsoever. Only once I listened to parts of one of her lectures on Shakespeare at the University in Mainz. That must have been in 1985 or 1986 when I started a work on Benjamin Britten's operas. Her lecture didn't help me with my own work, so I stopped visiting after I guess the third week.

There is of course no business relationship, can't be as I am a musician and mine is a totally different line of work.

As for the “otherwise”: We live in neighboring cities.

In fact, the first time I came in contact with her work regarding Shakespeare imagery was at a press conference in Darmstadt where she presented her book on the “Dark Lady”. I confess: That fascinated me and her arguments she presented in a calm, unexcited way. The lady convinced me. Since then I followed her work and I know her publications and homepage.

So, knowing her personally, talking to her from time to time, hearing her representing her interests and seeing just how meticulous her work is you can believe me:

She is anything but “an extremely maverick individual … obessively (sic!) defending distinctly fringe views”. These remarks by that guy Barlow are a brazen offense.

Why don't you do anything against these insults? Indifference?

I have another WP account exclusively for the German Wikipedia and I had another one for the English one. After I had bought a new computer I couldn't access it anymore (who knows why...) and so created the one I have now. That's it. CU! Serfgzuj (talk) 11:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)The reason I ask about alternate user accounts and any relationship to HH is because there appear to be a small number of accounts that exclusively edit articles related to HH (single purpose accounts). There's nothing inherently wrong with being a SPA, nor even in using multiple user accounts. However there are those who would attempt to make their POV appear more prevalent than it actually is by mis-using these techniques. When this is suspected, quite often a "sockpuppet" investigation is undertaken. However, I prefer to simply ask first to make sure I am not mistaken. From your answer, it appears that my suspicions are unfounded. However, please note that I have review HH's bio article and it appears to be of low quality. It lacks neutrality and an encyclopedic tone and contains far too many WP:UNDUE details. I would think that the article could be much improved by some copy editing. Ronnotel (talk) 12:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Addenda under “Controversy” in the article on the Cobbe portrait
Now, I prepared another shortened version of Prof. Dr. Hammerschmidt-Hummel's results. It contains NO original research or original thought and I just can't see any other offense against WP:UNDUE, WP:OR or WP:ENC! Everything is already published in some way, be it as a book, an interview or an article in some publication. Just take a look at the professor's homepage. Again: I do not publish my personal opinions. Everything I present here is the result of the work of a Shakespeare scholar of international standing. Is it possible for you to let the readers decide whether the material is valid or not?? WIKIPEDIA is not censored. Serfgzuj (talk) 11:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. However I think the paragraph that is there now is about right:

"Writing in the Frankfurter Rundschau Shakespeare biographer Hildegard Hammerschmidt-Hummel, author of a book on Shakespeare’s portraiture, said that the presentation of the Cobbe portrait as an authentic likeness of Shakespeare was unlikely. Hammerschmidt-Hummel also noted the view of Eberhard J. Nikitsch — a specialist in inscriptions — that the inscription on the Cobbe portrait dated from decades after its creation."
 * If your version is significantly longer than the existing text I would suggest you discuss it first on the talk page and try to get consensus on any major changes. Ronnotel (talk) 12:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hildegard's prose is unmistakable. I suspect that the Serfgzuj user-identity was taken over by her from someone else, since the first few sporadic entries are about music, unrelated to her interests. Her methods are somewhat well known. However, this is virtually unprovable Wiki-wise. Paul B (talk) 12:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If you are interested in commenting on this case, you may provide evidence at Sockpuppet_investigations/Serfgzuj. Were there to be serious abuse of alternate accounts (i.e. beyond what may be occurring at present), there are further techniques that can be used to establish sock-puppetry. However, your evidence would be useful in any case. Ronnotel (talk) 13:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments on the blacklist page
This discussion confirmed for me a growing understanding that there is a rigorous division maintained: content is decided by involved editors, behavior is contained by uninvolved administrators. Content, in the end, trumps behavior; control of behavior is intended to foster consensus, which is our true decision-making mechanism, by preventing abuses such as incivility, edit warring, and other disruption that bypasses or disrupts the consensus process. This, then, leads to these edges:

When involved editors cannot agree, sometimes there is process that brings in uninvolved editors. However, uninvolved editors may not understand the issues at a particular article and may tend to impose decisions based on "rules." Ideally, to participate in the consensus, editors should become involved, which requires studying the nature of the conflict and the topic of the article. Problems arise when uninformed editors weigh in according to, at best, general principles as they understand them, and, at worst, what might be a "majority POV" among the uninformed, which can sometimes be quite different from what experts would conclude.

The blacklist, I found, was listing sites, occasionally, that were truly valuable, because some editor thought they were truly valuable and added a lot of links! The linkspam volunteers can't possible take the time to make these judgments, and my ultimate conclusion was that it was necessary to blacklist based on excessive addition of links -- even if every link was proper. But, then:


 * the editor shouldn't be insulted and called a "spammer."
 * AGF should continue to apply, but not to the extent of allowing massive additions without discussion.
 * delisting should be possible based on legitimacy of links. If it turns out, on examination, that the links inserted were reasonable content, or most of them, the "linkspamming" was a mere appearance, an accident of enforcement necessity.
 * however, linkspam administrators were routinely applying their own opinions about usability even when the linkspam judgment turned out to be incorrect. This is where content arguments began to trump behavior, and where the blacklist began to be used to control content.
 * the "poster boy" for problem blacklisting is Lyrikline.org. An editor from Germany started, Lyrik on de.wikipedia, started adding links to articles on poets, and for a long time encountered no difficulties. Then this editor, at some point, got the idea that links to lyrikline.org belonged on the page of every poet represented there (or at least many of them), and began massively adding such links, cross-wiki. It was picked up on en.wikipedia first, where the editor had registered as User:Lyriker. The editor was warned to stop, stopped, but was still blocked based on an allegation of name violation ("Lyriker" means "Poet," and the editor was interested in poetry). The article on the web site was deleted as spam. The site was globally blacklisted. De editors, including administrators, asked for the blacklisting to be lifted. That was denied based on the original linkspam evidence, plus spurious copyvio claims. Several requests for whitelisting were denied (that's how I found out about it here). Eventually, I requested whitelisting of one page, and Beetstra looked at the situation and ultimately whitelisted the english-language interface, and now we have a number of articles with the links, and a good case could be made that, indeed, this reliable source could be used for *many* articles. There has been no opposition, and only approval (very little: the articles are not well-watched).
 * Lyrikline.org is still globally blacklisted, Beetstra is less willing to approve of delisting globally, his argument is that, say, a Chinese article on Berthold Brecht would not want to link to a German-language page on the writer, with audio of him reading. I disagree, but, ultimately, these are decisions to be made locally, and the blacklist pretty much guarantees that the decisions won't be made at all. My plan is to more extensively use lyrikline.org here, so far so good, and then go back to meta and point out that lyrikline.org is whitelisted at en and at de, so .... and see what happens.
 * Summary: the problem isn't blacklisting, per se, but delisting and whitelisting; it often proves to be quite difficult, even when there is no reasonable likelihood of renewed linkspam, if there ever was any in the first place.
 * My solution, tentatively, is to separate the blacklisting and whitelisting processes and make whitelisting for specific page usage, in particular, much easier for registered autoconfirmed editors. It would still require an admin approval in order to add a page to the whitelist, but the heavy lifting would be done by volunteers who are not administrators, and the opinions of editors at involved articles would be invited and considered. --Abd (talk)

POTD notification
Hi Ronnotel,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Cobbe portrait of Shakespeare.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on April 23, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-04-23.  howcheng  {chat} 17:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Hers fold  (t/a/c) 02:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Furtive admirer (talk)
Could you send a note to the above user, asking him (firmly, but politely) not to reinsert his accusations on my talk page after I've removed them. He's obviously an enthusiastic kid, who's gone ape over the Bernard Madoff affair and brings in anything and everything into this and related articles (e.g. a long quote from Dante). I edit his insertions when absolutely necessary, but in general try to avoid him. I think he just needs to know that he should cool it and that there are a few rules which people do watch. Thanks for any help. Smallbones (talk) 10:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "Please try to keep your comments constructive - comment on the content, not the contributor. Ronnotel (talk) 15:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)" Are you certain you sent this to the correct person?  Sounds like you should have sent it to the person above...selective discrimination?  Are you a patroller or are you personally connected to Smallbones?  I don't consider my comments harassment.  I consider an editor who deletes rather than abridges essential content a chronic and addicted harasser.  Your accusation is misplaced.  Sorry you have to be a messenger for others...poor form.

Furtive admirer (talk) 15:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of The Weeks (band)
A tag has been placed on The Weeks (band) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here 20:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of The Weeks (band)
I have nominated The Weeks (band), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/The Weeks (band). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here 20:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

This sounds crazy...
But do you think you can take your concerns to the talk page? Crazy notion, eh? Viriditas (talk) 14:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have - but your edits seem to go against what I thought we had just agreed to - minimal entry, with bulk deferred the sub page. Ronnotel (talk) 14:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So, you don't feel this new information is important to the article? That the witness was unsure about the race and reported one of the men as hispanic, but the police report said the witness described them as black? Viriditas (talk) 14:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No to the HLG article, yes to the sub article. These details are WP:UNDUE. Ronnotel (talk) 15:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure. Why not propose removing it on the talk page and get some other opinions?  It seems to me that the material is important because it illustrates several things about Gates' arrest.  Of course, new information is coming out daily, so it may be too early to come to any conclusion about this.  If you truly feel it does not belong, then instead of reverting, why don't you change it to something you prefer? Viriditas (talk) 15:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Gates again
According to The Root today, Skip refers to a fiancee, not a wife. http://www.theroot.com/views/accident-time-and-place He is not remarried. Critic11 (talk) 17:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh, sorry, but I think you might have me confused with someone else. I have not been active on the issue of Gates' marital status. Ronnotel (talk) 18:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Reverted with no notes?
Any reason you reverted the stock market education page? I didn't see any notes or talk. You seem to have great judgement in your contributions, but you typically leave a sound reason. --Keenwords (talk) 03:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * One of my self-appointed duties is to monitor financial pages for inappropriate insertion of "spam" content. When I reviewed your edits, I found the inclusion of some companies as opposed to other somewhat arbitrary and, perhaps precipitously, assumed they were motivated by WP:COI. Is there a reason why you singled out the firms you did for mention as opposed to others? A preferred approach would be to maintain a neutral list of companies providing trading education and simply reference that list, similar to Option screener. Ronnotel (talk) 10:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

There are only 3 major stock market education firms that I'm aware of considering the acquisitions as of late. The other two were already listed, and one of them has been acquired, which I noted in that update. I'm confident my contribution was accurate, and adding the last of the major companies doesn't delineate bias. I suppose I could remove the sentence altogether and list out the three firms. Correct me if I'm wrong.--Keenwords (talk) 03:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There are literally dozens, if not hundreds, of firms that would bill themselves as "stock market education" firms. I know this because I used to market my product to them. Do you have a reliable source that will certify that there are only three? Ronnotel (talk) 10:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

My source is an equity analyst and CFA for Forbes. We discussed this matter and came up with a master list. Initially, only 3 or 4 were considered "major firms" due to the fact that only those companies' earnings were measurable either by calculated sales since launch, or by earnings statement since their IPO. The revised list is literally just a bunch of site's that appear to rank well in search engines. As for the companies on the new list, there is no real credibility, or knowledge of these people around Wall Street, whereas the other 3 are known. I believe this is like asking "who are the major cell phone carriers or internet providers." The obvious are going to be listed. Why? Because they are known around the industry. --Keenwords (talk) 01:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * please review the policies regarding original research and reliable sourcing. Basically what an individual editor "knows" to be true is just not relevant. The only acceptable content for an article is what is documented in relaiable sources. Having a friend tell something, regardless of how well qualified he might be is not qualified. If he were to publish it in Forbes it would be just fine. Ronnotel (talk) 02:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Being that you were in the industry, I would assume that you know there are two major private companies and 1 extremely large publicly traded company that are...what's the word...maybe more "published" in the industry than others? I don't want to litter your page. Should I share links here?--Keenwords (talk) 04:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * in order to support your claim that there only three "major" firms, you would need a source that supports that idea. Specifically, I'm thinking about a competitive review published in a quality source such as Forbes or Barron's. If you can find such a source then you are more than welcome to add it to the article. You don't need to bother with my talk page, add it directly to the article. Ronnotel (talk) 20:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Series of Sapmmish links
Please take a look at []. It looks to me like a series of spam links, but not the worst I've seen. I'll trust your evaluation, and that you'll roll them back if needed. Smallbones (talk) 17:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Most recent - starts here  (let me know if I should let somebody else do this work!) Smallbones (talk) 01:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The first time I checked, it seemed like a borderline case. But this is clearly crossing the line and I have issued a cease and desist. Thanks for the heads up. Ronnotel (talk) 04:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:PAID
Progress is now being made at WP:Paid editing. The topic is very important, and I'd love to get the proposed policy back on track. If you have any input, I'd love to see it on the page. Smallbones (talk) 16:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like a good policy. The only thing I would add is that someone commenting on their own company is generally exempt so long as they clearly and forthrightly self-identify. I'll try to tweak the text when I get time. Ronnotel (talk) 18:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the contribution
Well the shit has clearly hit the fan now at ANI. Sorry if I even very indirectly got you involved, by editing at WP:PAID. Smallbones (talk) 19:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Virginia Tech massacre
Hello. I have listed the aforementioned article for featured article review. I notified you because it looks like you've contributed to it a lot. Teh Rote (talk) 14:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. I'll try to spend some time with it and resolve issues. I think you're right that there has been some minor deterioration since this was featured last year. Ronnotel (talk) 14:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

An FYI
Return of this. Curcumventing the BL. I've added it however, he/she has probably registered other domains for redirecting...--Hu12 (talk) 14:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Insider trading
Something seems to be up with the WP:3RRNB - maybe just a lack of admins watching, maybe I didn't phrase the magic words right, OK maybe I more or less said "What the heck are you guys doing ..." But in any case, could you look at 3RRNB It looks to me like a painfully obvious case of one user and his IP address running amuck.

There was a minor personal attack on me (smallballs!), but I've got no passion about this at all - it just seems obvious that this guy is asking to be banned for 24 hours. Smallbones (talk) 01:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It's been taken care of. I should learn a bit more patience.  Smallbones (talk) 21:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC) aka smallballs
 * OK, was off net all weekend, sorry I didn't see this til now. Ronnotel (talk) 12:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Nidal Malik Hasan article
Please return to the question you posed on the main article. There were objections to your opinion and it would be best to try to achieve consensus on this matter before investing further effort into this article. MJKazin (talk) 22:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I responded to this at Talk:Nidal Malik Hasan. Ronnotel (talk) 23:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

CRU
Please don't use your admin bit to edit protected articles in which you had already staked out a position. I'm not making any specific accusations of impropriety, but it is a rather obvious conflict of interest. Lt. Gen. Pedro Subramanian (talk) 14:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for trying to edit the article to add information about Michael Mann. I understand that you acted in good faith and with the intention of carrying out an edit for which apparent consensus existed, subject to the normal procedures for editing protected articles.

However you got your facts wrong, particularly in the second edit. No review or inquiry of Michael Mann has been announced. At this stage the University is only saying it's reviewing the contents of the leaked emails to see if they suggest untoward behavior. If so they'll make a further announcement, so it's a bit premature to say Mann is subject to a review or inquiry. Since this is a biographies of living persons matter we do have to get it right. --TS 17:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. We'll get back to this when protection is lifted, I guess. Ronnotel (talk) 17:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Have to admit I came on a bit strong (though the basic point remains). Sorry about that, I deal with teenagers all day... Lt. Gen. Pedro Subramanian (talk) 17:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

*2
. Just when I was gearing up for some choice sarcasm, too :-( William M. Connolley (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I had read that section, but missed the part where it mentions the IPCC comment at the top. It's seems like that conversation has devolved into bickering about protection. Ronnotel (talk) 18:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no disciple on talk pages. As Hobbes put it For the laws of nature, as justice, equity, modesty, mercy, and, in sum, doing to others as we would be done to, of themselves, without the terror of some power to cause them to be observed, are contrary to our natural passions, that carry us to partiality, pride, revenge, and the like. And covenants, without the sword, are but words and of no strength to secure a man at all. Therefore, notwithstanding the laws of nature (which every one hath then kept, when he has the will to keep them, when he can do it safely), if there be no power erected, or not great enough for our security, every man will and may lawfully rely on his own strength and art for caution against all other men. William M. Connolley (talk) 18:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

?
huh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.25.16.148 (talk) 12:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not sure what you are asking about. I don't recall ever havig interacted with your ip before. If this is concerning some action or comment of mine, it is customary to provide a link to the specific edit at issue. Sorry I can't be more helpful. Ronnotel (talk) 12:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Global warming
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed is on article probation. -- TS 18:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Wilmette, Illinois
Please check the anon at Willmette. Smallbones (talk) 01:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks - any more trouble and I'll template and/or block as necessary. Ronnotel (talk) 10:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Free code on Volopta.com
Hi, I am attempting to edit Wikipedia to include links to www.Volopta.com, which is my free site for derivatives pricing and not a marketing tool. All the code on the site is free, and the site contains no advertising. So I'm hoping that the site is in the spirit of Wikipedia. Thanks. Fab10ab (talk) 01:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, there are lots of free packages that would love to promote themselves on these pages. I'm afraid the price of entry is citations in reliable sources. And even then, you'd need to let someone unassociated with the package make the entries. Otherwise the pages would be littered with spam links. Ronnotel (talk) 02:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi
I thought I would open up discussion here, as I know you're move of Muslim was good faith, and don't recognize your name from the prior discussions that have been had over similar reflections of religion. I also thought it better than just reverting w/out discussion. In short, they go as follows, and I will search for diffs to them if you like. 1) We don't generally reflect religion or ethnicity in the lede. 2) But we do generally reflect date of birth--in the first sentence, and (with recent changes) also follow, or can follow, the typical encylopaedic approach of reflecting place of birth first sentence. 3) We also typically reflect citizenship in the lead -- first sentence. 4) We reflect religion and ethnicity in the lede if it is relevant to the notability of the person. Examples include people committing terrorism in the name of Islam. 5) In such cases, the natural place to reflect it is in the first sentence, alongside their citizenship. As in "Muslim American".--Epeefleche (talk) 20:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You also say that sources conflict as to his ethnicity. But that is not correct.  It's like saying some sources call him Pakistani, and others call him American, so they conflict.  Not so.  He is a Pakistani American.


 * Our job, and the best way of keeping out POV, is to reflect the sources. Not construe contradictions where none exist.  This is also a basic approach taken towards statutory construction, by analogy.  Where two documents cover the same issue, and can be read so as not to reflect a contradiction, that is the way to read them.  That concept was developed over centuries of jurisprudence, and makes good sense.  We should, IMHO, do the same here.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * OK - hadn't seen that discussion. However, the wording was awkward and appeared like a POV conflict rippling on to the page, which always makes for bad prose. If you feel it necessary to revert, then please find a more syntactically pleasing phrasing. I think it flows well where it is. Ronnotel (talk) 20:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Right -- Last I had seen it (and I see it was moved since) it had preceded his citizenship. Will move it there.  Tx.  (just opened discussion here, btw, as I know you are coming at this fresh, with a fresh view).  Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Phil Leotardo
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Phil Leotardo. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Phil Leotardo. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

dyk
Tx for you coment. Certainly not the intention to make light of events -- nor, I'm sure, is that the intent of the jihad analysts who used the term, such as Brachmann and Kohlmann, two of the foremost in the field. Can I ask you if you might work with me on this, to find a construct that works? Would something along the following lines be better?

... that Nidal Malik Hasan (pictured) [and/or Jihad Jane] was said to have started out as a "jihobbyist", also known as an "ehadi"?

--Epeefleche (talk) 23:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I've sought to address your concerns here. Tx for your suggestions.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I appreciate the outreach. However, I'm still a little concerned about the notability of the term Jihobbyist. My preference would be to wait for the term to gain more citations in reliable sources before we put it on the main page. Ronnotel (talk) 13:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I guess I would say that the notability issue is one for an AfD.  Which we just had, with only 1/3 voting delete.  Leading to the interpretation "no consensus", which for Wiki purposes means "keep" (as notable).  In terms of waiting, I don't we have an option of putting it up as a DYK later -- DYKs can only be made shortly after creation (or 5x expansion).--Epeefleche (talk) 22:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking at the sources directly, I don't see notability as being established. I think it sets a bad precedent to put a term whose notability is in question on the front page. Ronnotel (talk) 12:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Protection level
Hello. Let's hope the semi-protection will be sufficient. Yesterday I semi-protected Sani Kaita, after he received red card and was vandalized constantly. Since the protection, there was not a single case of vandalism. Usually it comes from IPs and new users. - Darwinek (talk) 16:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Climate change moving to Workshop
This Arbitration case is now moving into the Workshop phase. Please read Arbitration/Guide to arbitration to understand the process. Editors should avoid adding to their evidence sections outside of slight tweaks to aid in understanding; large-scale additions should not be made. Many proposals have already been made and there has already been extensive discussion on them, so please keep the Arbitrators' procedures in mind, namely to keep "workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible." Workshop proposals should be relevant and based on already provided evidence; evidence masquerading as proposals will likely be ignored. ~ Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 20:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Shirley Sherrod Redirect
Excellent call on that. Just so you know. --Hourick (talk) 20:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Bob Dold
Hey. I noticed you started the Bob Dold article. I added some additional information based on recent news stories and other biographical info. Check it out - thanks. Cardinal91 (talk) 06:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks fine. I'd be a bit careful about adding criticism cited to his opponent (criticism from an election opponent is hardly unusual) but I think it's fair. Thanks. Ronnotel (talk) 12:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Understood re opponent criticism. It's part of why I asked you to take a look. I found the line reasonable since there has been some discussion among voters re Dold's positions vis a vis his public statements and endorsements. See Stupid Internet Tricks, Rich Miller, Capitol Fax, July 28, 2010 for one example. I see Flatterworld has improved the references and given an example on how to format better. I'll try to get back to formatting the others soon. Cheers. Cardinal91 (talk) 01:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Check out Talk:Bob Dold. TIA. Cardinal91 (talk) 04:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Legal sock
I use this account once in a while when on vacation and I am not sure the Internet connection is safe and secure. See my contributions to verify this. Bearian a/k/a Bearian'sBooties 14:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OK - I was just curious when and why they are used. I am in no doubt that you are who you say you are ;) Be safe. Ronnotel (talk) 14:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I am back in town, so I am back using my main account. I only created the sock because of advice I received at my RfA. Bearian (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

jared levy
Hi there, you deleted his page on 8/26/10, I was wondering if there is a way to retrieve all of the links/sources, it took myself and the others who created the page many hours to obtain. I am Rebuilding page now, do you have them saved somewhere? Jared is not only an integral part of CNBC's lineup, but has been instrumental in bringing practical options education to the masses. He is well respected in the investment community. could use your help here! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamschwar1 (talk • contribs) 07:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The article was deleted because a WP:PROD tag was left unchallenged on the article for one week. That means the community felt that deleting the article was likely to be uncontroversial. Of particular concern was the lack of reliable sources, inclusion of excessive and unnecessary biographical details that were not supported by the sources that were provided, the fact that the article appeared to violate WP's ban on advertising, and the fact that the article was largely written by single purpose accounts. These traits are commonly associated with bio pages where a conflict of interest may exist. There is a process for challenging a PROD deletion and I will be happy to provide you with the source of the article as it existed at the time it was deleted. However, I encourage you to review the policies I have linked to and decide whether and how the concerns can be adequately addressed. Ronnotel (talk) 11:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Original article source can now be viewed here. Ronnotel (talk) 13:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I will work to modify the page to meet Wikipedia requirements and standards. I am fairly new to this, so any input would be appreciated.  From what I recall the sources were reputable and consistent not only with policy, but with similar bio pages.  Let me sift through the data and check for accuracy and references.  Thank you for your input. ADS 13:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamschwar1 (talk • contribs)
 * (edit conflict)Happy to help. Couple of things - first, it's helpful to sign your posts by placing four "~" characters at the end. Secondly, most of the sources are not considered reliable - including press releases, video clips, and anything that hasn't been put through a rigorous editorial process. Lastly, nearly all of the bio details were unsupported by these reliable sources. When I went through the page, about the only thing that seemed reliably sourced was the fact that Mr. Levy was an occasional contributor on a well-known financial talk show. When everything else is removed, I had a hard time justifying notability for the article. Also - as a single purpose account, your contributions on this article will likely be given extra scrutiny because of the potential for a conflict of interest. You should be aware that there are technical and non-technical means to determine whether accounts are acting in concert. It would be helpful for you to declare what, if any, relationship you might have with the article's subject. I think your best course of action would be to let another editor mentor you. There are lots of places to go for this help, you might start at WP:EAR, where you can ask for some help on how to get this article back on track. As it stands now, the article is likely to be nominated for deletion, which is a more permanent form of deletion. Ronnotel (talk) 14:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Indefinite ban of anonymous IP user
Hi Ronnotel, I just wanted to post on your talk page because I feel that the current discussion regarding your indefinite ban of an anonymous IP user requires your immediate attention. Please see Talk:High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection soon and weigh in on the suggestions. Thanks!  Amit   ►  16:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Tea Party movement collapse.
Thank you for collapsing those forum-like posts. I thought of doing that, but while I had found those templates once before, I was unable to find them this time. In any case, it's a more merciful and transparent solution than deletion, yet still quite effective. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 21:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Bob Dold.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Bob Dold.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 19:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring on Etheridge
You are a regular and an admin, so I won't template you. But I'll ask you not to edit war. There is ongoing discussion. Please stop reverting. Thank you. Cresix (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Edit-warring? I'm happy to provide reasoned and thoughtful explanation for my changes. Provided all parties do the same edit warring is not really an issue. Ronnotel (talk) 19:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "Thoughtful explanation" does not preclude edit warring. I was being courteous. I usually template someone who reverts twice during an ongoing discussion on the talk page. Obviously my courtesy was misdirected. My apologies for assuming you appreciate such courtesy. Cresix (talk) 19:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh, to be honest, you're the only one who has done a "full-revert" (twice, now). Edit warring is all about consensus building, which, if I'm not mistaken, we are in the process of doing. Ronnotel (talk) 19:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Partial or full revert is still a revert. I won't link the policy for you, as I assume you know how to find it and don't wish to insult you further. Cresix (talk) 19:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion" (emphasis mine). Rapid edits are fine as long as they are constructive and don't interfere with the discussion that create consensus. Ronnotel (talk) 19:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

If you must insist on quotations, here's another one: "Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether it involves the same or different material each time—counts as a revert"; but again, please forgive my attempts at courtesy by making a polite request rather than slapping a template on your talk page. Now, if you don't mind, I have more important things to do than quibble about all of this, so I won't be commenting any more about this unless something new issues arise regarding the Etheridge article. Unless you find it insulting, please accept my thanks for your discussion on the Etheridge talk page; if you find it insulting, please disregard my thanks. Cresix (talk) 19:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I find nothing about this interaction the least bit insulting. Best. Ronnotel (talk) 19:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

RE WP:BITE
Agree, mostly. On the other hand, if there had not been a detailed discussion about that particular information on the talk page, I might have reverted with no comment. In any event, you make a valid point. Thanks for following me around to check up on my every move. I'll be sure to return the favor. Cresix (talk) 18:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably best not to assume that every conversation is studied in detail by every contributor - particularly if the IP user has a single edit to their credit. BTW, you are, of course, free to review any edit I make but I should warn you it might prove stultifyingly dull. Ronnotel (talk) 18:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe "stultifyingly dull", but if anyone deserves such an effort, it's you. Cresix (talk) 18:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Blacklist page
Don't want to wheel war, but why did you revert Amatulic's edits at the Spam Blacklist page? Am I missing something? OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I also have to ask, was your recent revert of my edits on MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist an honest mistake, or am I misunderstanding something about how admins should be managing that page? ~Amatulić (talk) 23:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * oh crap, I honestly have no idea how I reverted that. All I can think is my GD iPhone must have a mind of it's own. So sorry. I really need to stop trying to edit from this thing. Ronnotel (talk) 01:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Etheridge
After the current dispute is resolved (and honestly I have no special interest in the article; I've even asked Etheridge some very challenging questions after one of his speeches about what I considered his bad ideas when he was running for NC Superintendent of Public Schools), I'm taking the article off of my watch list, at least for the foreseeable future. I think it's probably not a good idea (for either of us) for our paths to cross any more than is necessary. I accept your explanation that there is no personal animosity as made in good faith, but on a more objective level I have a hard time believing that. In any event, I don't question your good intentions toward Wikipedia. I'll do everything I can to stay away from your areas of interest. It's your choice, of course, but I'll hope you'll do the same regarding my interests beyond the Etheridge article. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 21:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Killian Documents
I see that you reverted my request for deletion and added a one week block, and that a probable sock, dcfx, reverted the other Killian-based article about 20 minutes after you did on Christmas morning, so I guess it's safe to say that you two are connected. Since most if not all of the "editors" I've bumped heads with over the Killian articles mess, if they have technical backgrounds, tend to be right-wingers either acting as socks or sock operators, who often if not usually are also involved in trying to game the Climate Change articles, it's not so hard to guess where you stand. (I did notice that Jmcnamera apparently finally got caught at least, but only after he traced my contrib history to undo pretty much all my contributions after I got blocked, which of course dumb-as-rocks admins failed to note, like pretty much all the shenanigans that go on with the Killian Documents articles. And that block, by the way, was done by suckering a certain blustery, none-too-bright admin with a bogus OTRS complaint worked up by one of the sock operators and an unreliable source whom I described as being, well, an unreliable source.)

In any case, I will leave things alone until after New Years, when I'll make a more formal request for both Killian articles to be deleted. Not that you likely care, but I was dead accurate in my description of the problems with them. They are junk articles protected by a phalanx of right-wingers and their sock/IP reps, and who have no intention of letting even the most ridiculous, most unsupported rubbish from wholly unreliable sources be edited out. -CallMeBC aka 209.51.233.195 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC).

Financial crisis of 2007–2011
I've left the following message at User talk:Stybn, who changed the title to 2007-2011. It clearly should be moved back to 2007-2010.
 * It's a bit early, and also a bit late, to call 2011 a financial crisis. Do you have a reliable source that we have been in a financial crisis in 2011?  Of course not!  It's only been 2011 for 10-15 hours, the markets haven't opened, and there are no news reports on the markets.  I'll just note that the Dow has been up for 2 years in a row and that the recession was officially over more than a year ago.  So would you move this back to Financial crisis of 2007-2010.

Smallbones (talk) 15:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

"Personal image filter"
You have seen this, right? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

your recent page move
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding your non-consensus page move. Thank you. Boud (talk) 21:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree that is was against consensus - I see no disruption to the editing process and it seems to capture the nature of the event better than the previous title. Remember, thousands more eyes are seeing the article title and the new lede than are actually participating in any one discussion on renaming the article. If it were truly against consensus, someone would have reverted by now. That said, the title might be changed again - that's fine, but I doubt it will be changed back to what it was. Ronnotel (talk) 22:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the moving, Ronnotel.83.17.84.82 (talk) 15:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

(Not really a talkback, more of a information of a page move done. :) Peasantwarrior (talk) 06:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC))

2011 military intervention in Libya
The problem is that as you reverted the lead now it is factually wrong! "In March, 2011, a coalition consisting of Canada, France, Italy, the UK and the US" that is a false statement! The coalition was much broader from the start, these 5 nations were the first to strike for the simple reason that they had assets in the area at that time- Italy and Canada ships, France, the UK and the USA air and naval assets. Belgium, Spain, Norway, Qatar, Denmark ecc. needed some time to send their planes to the area. That is why the UK actually flew their first missions from the UK, as they had no assets ready in the area, that is why Canadian plans only entered into action today! My lead sentence was at least without an error and it at least mentioned for what reason the UN went in! also we do not bold the article name in the lead anymore "In March, 2011, a coalition consisting of Canada, France, Italy, the UK and the US launched a military intervention in Libya to enforce a no-fly zone established over Libyan airspace by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 on 17 March 2011." this lead is wrong, bad and doesn't mention the most important aspect of it all - why is there an intervention! noclador (talk) 23:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * my edit was "many nations", someone else changed it o th enumerated list. Feel free to make it more accurate as you suggest. Ronnotel (talk) 00:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * have you read the UN resolution 1973?
 * "4. Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory, and requests the Member States concerned to inform the Secretary-General immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the authorization conferred by this paragraph which shall be immediately reported to the Security Council;'
 * "8. Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General and the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, to take all necessary measures to enforce compliance with the ban on flights imposed by paragraph 6 above, as necessary, and requests the States concerned in cooperation with the League of Arab States to coordinate closely with the Secretary General on the measures they are taking to implement this ban, including by establishing an appropriate mechanism for implementing the provisions of paragraphs 6 and 7 above,"
 * it nowhere says "and to support the 2011 Libyan uprising". my version is 100% correct as it takes 1:1 the UN text
 * "to take all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas under threat of attack" my version
 * "to take all necessary measures,..., to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack" UN text
 * what you are doing is removing the 100% correct reason for intervention and replacing it with an erroneous version. Please refrain from inserting erroneous material in the article. thanks, noclador (talk) 13:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * your version does not have consensus and is POV. If you think it important to add to the lead please get support for it on the talk page first. Ronnotel (talk) 13:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As as soon as we agree on a first paragraph the same editor as before must smuggle his original research about the coalition only being France, UK, USA, Canada and Italy at the start into the article again . I took this factual error out again, but would appreciate it, if you could keep and eye for this kind of edit out too. noclador (talk) 11:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip. Will be on the lookout. Ronnotel (talk) 12:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * and again . The guy mixes up members of the coalition (initially: France, UK, Canada, Italy, USA, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Spain and Qatar) and the nations capable of launching the first strikes (France, UK, Canada, Italy, USA) noclador (talk) 18:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Adamschwar1/JAL recovery page


A tag has been placed on User:Adamschwar1/JAL recovery page requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Pichpich (talk) 23:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Great job at showing bias
You're a perfect example of the type of arrogant narcissist who has ruined Wikipedia. You engage in edit wars and then lock the pages as an administrator. This once was a great site. Thanks to people like you, it's in the toilet. Aloha. 208.83.63.222 (talk) 23:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * FYI, the IP who left that message also started a thread at AN/I: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. —C.Fred (talk) 23:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Interesting ANI discussion - very relevant to what happened to me
Take a look at my discussion with Ironholds at my talk page, where he unprotected a page I'd protected after I'd removed BLP violations. I'd like your comments. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 05:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikimedia Stories Project
Aloha!

My name is Victor Grigas, I’m a storyteller at the Wikimedia Foundation in San Francisco working on collecting unique and interesting stories from Wikipedians that can be used to compel donations for the 2011 fundraiser.

I found your user name on this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_in_Chicago

If you are interested in participating, and would like to schedule a telephone or Skype interview with me, please send me an email (vgrigas@wikimedia.org) along with any questions you may have.

Thanks for your time!

Victor, User:Victorgrigas Victor Grigas (talk) 22:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

PS If you know of anyone with whom I should speak please let me know :)

Second Mile Foundation listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Second Mile Foundation. Since you had some involvement with the Second Mile Foundation redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). jheiv talk  contribs 21:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Second Mile Foundation


A tag has been placed on Second Mile Foundation requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. jheiv talk  contribs 21:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Anonymous Users
Hi, Ronnotel. You got it mostly right over on Symonds' page. There's a bias there, but there's also a more general bias in the sense that the page on Brett Kimberlin that was deleted has been circulating, and it most certainly meets the criteria for a neutral point of view, and it is well sourced. I tried to address this over on Symonds' page, but he has semi-protected his page so that I can't respond. (I tried to write: "Don't be so dramatic. I didn't link you to any terrorist, nor did I suggest that you're part of cabal of conspirators.  I said that you don't appear neutral, and you don't.  As far as your claim that this guy is a terrorist, could you back that up?  Pardon my skepticism, but I looked him up on this very fine encyclopedia to see if there was any information about his activities, perhaps with citations that I could use to verify it, but it seems that someone has deleted it!")  Anyway, thanks, and have a nice day. 173.49.61.82 (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Brett Kimberlin
There is now a Brett Kimberlin article. It is a mess. But it exists. 169.230.30.104 (talk) 02:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * noted. Thanks for the heads up.Ronnotel (talk) 02:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
Hello, Ronnotel. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The section is Paul Ryan and speech reception. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

K.Flay
Hi, would it be all right with you if I merged User:Ronnotel/K.Flay Recovery with the main K.Flay article? Currently your recovery userpage comes up as the first google entry, making it confusing to find the main article. I realize that it was deleted before, but I've also gone ahead and restored the deleted revisions since it now looks like there are adequate sources & a good claim for notability. Regards, ˉˉanetode╦╩ 03:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * yes, please use the recovered material however you like. I was simply responding to an earlier request to recover material from a deleted page. Good luck. Ronnotel (talk) 14:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks ˉˉanetode╦╩ 15:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Killian Documents Controversy
I just noticed that the talk page for the "Killian documents controversy" was disabled for "new or unregistered users" and it was done by you, supposedly for "trolling from IP user suspected of block evasion" (Yeah, right....) I don't suppose you would mind sharing your reasoning here, especially since it seems to support utterly nonsensical speculation and completely confused "facts" by evidently right wing trolls (and probably puppets) at the expense of any countering non-nonsensical points accompanied by actual links to actual sources? A penny for anything resembling a coherent response? -BC aka 209.6.92.99 (talk) 16:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Your uncollapse
I certainly hope this wasn't the result of my immdiately-previous edit. I had exactly the opposite intention.LeadSongDog come howl!  18:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to make it a big thing, but comments were being added to a collapsed thread and I thought it would be better if they were visible. I'm not really sure what the point of collapsing it was, the discussion is hardly off-topic but I'm not really bothered one way or the other. Ronnotel (talk) 18:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No sweat. Just seems like a borderline-DFTT situation, but I've seen to much trash on this topic over time. Thanks.LeadSongDog come howl!  16:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I must say I'm pretty disappointed you consider this on par with trolling. Whatever one thinks of Mills and his theory, I find it, quite frankly, unworthy of Wikipedia to use such a thinly-sourced allegation as a means to insert the word "fraud" in the lead of a bio page. And then to accuse anyone who objects as a troll is really beyond the pale. It seems WP:BLP is really only meant to be applied on an as-needed basis. Ronnotel (talk) 17:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Virginia Tech Massacre
The Virginia Tech Massacre article was demoted from Featured Article status and then de-listed as a Good Article (for reasons to which I object, but I can't be objective). What is the process for restoring the article's standing? I have done massive amounts of cleanup; how does one get it reviewed again? Does it have to be listed as a Good Article before it can be considered for Featured Article status? I'm not savvy about the processes here. I noted that the previous Featured Article review was started by you; that's why I'm addressing my questions here. If there is a different process, or I need to contact someone else, please let me know. Thanks! &mdash;D'Ranged 1 talk 18:10, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment
Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is at BlackLight Power. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 12:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Reason
Ron, re this comment - I believe you are misstating the reason. 13:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi! I am the DRN volunteer managing this case. While it would be interesting to examine the actual cautions we are talking about, it doesn't matter either way as far as the DRN case is involved, because DRN only discusses article content, never user conduct. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Why is this here?
Why is the paragraph that starts with the words "Hildegard Hammerschmidt-Hummel..." stuck at the bottom of this page? It looks like a comment added to whatever the latest thread is. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * not sure, but perhaps someone pasted some article text into a comment which included a footnote. it's probably time for me to archive some comments. thanks! Ronnotel (talk) 15:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Scientific Bloopers in Interstellar (film)
''I believe in the movie Cooper described the voyage to the nearest star would take "one thousand years", not "one thousand light-years" as you describe. I remember working through the logic behind his estimate, considering how fast a human-design space craft could reasonably accelerate/decelerate on such a voyage.

Actually, even such an estimate would be wrong: the voyage to Saturn takes two years, and Saturn is, at the furthest, about 11 AU away from earth, that is 88 light-minutes away. The nearest star is at 4.2 light years of distance, which means 25085 times the maximum distance Earth-Saturn. Assuming that the journey took place while Saturn was at its furthest (which, if true, would be an exceptionally stupid thing to do) and that the trajectory was the minimum distance path, with the same spacecraft the voyage to Proxima Centauri would take more than 50 thousand years, give or take.

Moreover, the section scientific bloopers, which you cancelled, contained a calculation made using the formula extrapolated by the Pound-Rebka experiment, which may be replicated by anyone at any times.

In my belief, the section should be renamed, as the name it has today misleads people into thinking that the film was scientifically accurate, whereas the only scientific accurate thing was the depiction of the black hole as seen from a distance.

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I would like to retain my admin rights 76.232.23.51 (talk) 02:13, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I would like to retain my rights Ronnotel (talk) 02:40, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins
Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers
Hi.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins) .MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 01:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. — xaosflux  Talk 00:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated, please post to the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. — xaosflux  Talk 05:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news
 * A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
 * Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
 * Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news
 * When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
 * Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
 * The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration
 * The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries
 * JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Haircut (finance)
Greetings. There is an ongoing discussion in the Talk page of the article "Haircut (finance)." As a past contributor to that article, I invite you to participate since it's a rather important issue for the subject. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 11:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

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

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Abdi Garad until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

File:Fred Noonan.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Fred Noonan.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Ixfd64 (talk) 22:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

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

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Option screener until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. JMWt (talk) 07:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC)