User talk:The Interior/Archive 5

My Account
My acccount has appeared under lt.wikipedia.org My question is why would my account appear under that area? When I look under global user my account is on three sites including the above. How did it get there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msruzicka (talk • contribs) 20:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC) Msruzicka (talk) 21:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, whenever you visit another language wiki, or any Wikimedia Foundation site while logged in, your account gets registered there. You can see mine has me listed at all sorts of wikis where I've never edited, but that I have visited.  If you want more info, ask at the Help desk and you might get a more informed answer.  Cheers,  The Interior  (Talk) 00:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * See also: Help:Unified Login at Wikimedia. The Interior  (Talk) 00:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

?????
You left this comment on my profile could you please explain why?
 * " 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. The Interior  (Talk) 10:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)"

I don't remember personally attacking anybody??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMERICAN 1 ENGINEER (talk • contribs) 01:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Well, vancouverites need to watch out for one another! The Interior  (Talk) 15:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Meetup/Vancouver
As part of "Wikipedia Loves Libraries program of events at libraries and archives across North America around October 2011," please check out the new Meetup/Vancouver page for people interested in a meetup this October 2011 at the central branch of the Vancouver Public Library. Your feedback is much appreciated. Thanks. -- A. Kupicki (talk) 17:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds cool, do my best to be there! The Interior  (Talk) 17:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate Language
A user used the word "bullshit" on the talk page of pseudoscience article. I left a message on there talk page not to use inappropriate language. That user left an inappropriate message on my talk page using that offensive word.Msruzicka (talk) 02:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Course language is generally frowned upon in discussions, and that user looks to have been having a bad day. I'd just ignore it.  The whole pseudoscience area is fraught with angry debates; it's sort of par for the course over there (partly why I never have much interest).  It's unfortunate, but do your best to be cool and you've already improved the situation.  The Interior  (Talk) 04:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Another major rewrite
Check this out.  Volcano guy  04:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Very cool. I remember some of the images from the 2010 mudslide, wish I could have seen some of the damage firsthand.  Did a quick copyedit, not much there to fix! Only quibble - the caption for the Bridge River Vent photo mentions an "inverted V" which I can't really pick out. (maybe Photoshop a little black arrow in there?) Also uses the phrase "forested valley fill" which is a bit confusing.  Overall, great work!  Gotta get up there sometime.  The Interior  (Talk) 04:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I just revised the caption. Do you think the article is ready for FAC?  Volcano guy  06:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * FYI I undid this edit of yours, which was incorrect. As a name, The Devastator is capitalized, as shown on the BC Geographical Names and GSC pages. Also see The Table.  Volcano guy  02:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool, I've been doing cataloging recently, and we declare war on spurious capitals. But if that's the usage, I won't fight it.  I think it's looking pretty good for FAC, but I haven't been through there myself.  If you are planning on nominating it, link me the review page and I'll help with what I can. Cheers,  The Interior  (Talk) 23:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright. I might nominate it after I create some "subarticles" for Meager. I have been creating articles for Meager's rock units (e.g. Plinth Assemblage, Job Assemblage, The Devastator Assemblage, Mosaic Assemblage) to link in the article. As far as I am aware of, the Pylon and Capricorn assemblages are the only ones that need articles.  Volcano guy  11:56, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to Vancouver meetup
Hello,

Wikipedian British Columbians are planning a meetup at the Vancouver Public Library, Central Branch, on Sunday, October 16th, as part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries events. If you wish to attend, please see Meetup/Vancouver and add your signature to the list.

Thank you! Inverse Hypercube 02:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

2011 WikiProject Film coordinator election
Voting for WikiProject Film's October 2011 project coordinator election has started. We are aiming to select five coordinators to serve for the next year; please take a moment from editing to vote here by October 29! Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 12:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Pine Creek (British Columbia)
The talk page for Pine Creek (British Columbia) has a united kingdom wikiprojects banner. Pine Creek is in British Columbia. It probably should not have a united kingdom wikiprojects banner. Can you check it and change it if thats whats necessary? Msruzicka (talk) 19:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I fixed it. In the future if you want to add or fix these banners, just add this to the talk page:
 * Pfly (talk) 23:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Pfly (talk) 23:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The County Surveyor Article
Hiya The Interior - when you get a spare minute please go see County Surveyor - I managed to get my thoughts down in writing tidy, so I copied and pasted it into County Surveyor and tidied it a little bit more in there.

I still have to write a section on where freemasonry fits in, but will do that quietly in my drafting page where I won't upset anybody.

DadrianT,EsqMCIHT (talk) 01:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Practical Astronomy with your Calculator
I created a page called Practical Astronomy with your Calculator. There is a book called Practical Astronomy with your Calculator. The page is about the book. The page is up for deletion because the book isn't notable. The book was first published in 1979 and has been reprinted in 4 editions for over 30 years it has been used by countless amateur astronomers. I don't think the page should be deleted. What do you think? Can you save the page?Msruzicka (talk) 16:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is the Notability guideline for books: WP:BK If you can satisfy the requirements there, the proposed deletion should be removed.  If you can find some online reviews of the book by reliable sources, or find commentary on the book in another work and add it as a ref, I'll contest the deletion.  I'm sure some good reviews are available online, I see it was published by a reputable publisher.  The PROD process takes a week, so don't panic!  The Interior  (Talk) 16:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I just added a section called reviews to Practical Astronomy with your Calculator. I mentioned the book was on Amazons best seller list and someone deleted the information and reference.  Is this vandalism?  Unexplained Edit  could you check it outMsruzicka (talk) 19:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * They should have left an edit summary to explain what they were doing. I'd support his or her edit for a couple reasons.  Amazon's reviews are user-submitted, so they're not ideal for Wikipedia.  Also, stating that it got favourable reviews on its own falls afoul of WP:PUFFERY.  It would be better to give a more in-depth summary of a review, i.e. what the reviewer liked/didn't like.  Did you check out the Astronomy Now review I linked on the Discussion page?  It's probably more useful than the Amazon reviews (and would help to get the "notability" tag removed).  Best,  The Interior  (Talk) 00:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Mary Creek
Mary Creek has been put up for deletion. Mary Creek is a river of British Columbia. Can you change this? Somebody has nominated Mary Creek For Deletion. please help.Msruzicka (talk) 05:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Brian Penny
I'm unsure of how I did not provide a reliable source...while some of the links do not specify the name "Brian Penny" in them, I cited http://www.foxbusiness.com/industries/2011/03/15/anonymous-perplexing-leak-bank-america-documents-wsj/ which as a legitimate news source, named Brian Penny in paragraph 6 of their article. If you would like, I can provide further reliable sources such as the Wall Street Journal and International Business Times which also cite Brian Penny, some even including a picture. I just don't understand how that is not considered a verifiable reference source. Versability (talk) 01:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * See the notability guideline for people here: WP:PEOPLE. The sourcing needs to be about the individual, and not just a passing mention.  The article you provided above is about a leak, not about Penny himself.  This is a borderline prod, and if you can provide something stronger I'll remove it. Best,  The Interior  (Talk) 01:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

First off, sorry, I deleted the tag again. I'm really new to this. I apologize for my ignorance. The source material is utilized in regards to the event being discussed where it is being cited. I guess I'm not understanding how that works. From my perspective, the source article does state more than just a name in passing. It discusses a project that Brian Penny worked on. I will update with more sources, however I feel that just because the article focuses on the corporation Bank of America as they are the headline grabber does not mean that the contribution was not there. It's like saying that the loser of the Superbowl was never there since the article the next day is only about the winner. Versability (talk) 01:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries. I've changed the proposed deletion to a proper Articles for Deletion discussion, which will allow other editors to give their opinions.  We just need a bit more substantial coverage, I'm afraid.  What you've given would make a great back-up ref, but the article can't stand on that alone.  If you can find something with good coverage about Penny himself, we can keep the article.  Another option is to have the article moved into your own userspace where it can be worked on as a draft until better sources are found.  Best,  The Interior  (Talk) 01:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I added an additional source http://www.neontommy.com/news/2011/03/bank-america-subsidiary-defrauded-borrowers-leaked-e-mails-suggest which focuses as much on Brian as it does on Bank of America in that particular event. Hopefully that helps. Versability (talk) 01:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Moose Milk
An alcoholic beverage enjoyed by the Canadian Airforce. The drink consists of boiling water, condensed milk, rum and nutmeg I think. I noticed no page on wikipedia about Moose Milk just a redirect to some festival in eastern Canada. I think there should be a Moose Milk page outlining this Canadian tradition. What's your opinion should I make a page? Do you know any good sources? any help appreciatedMsruzicka (talk) 02:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's a potential source: A Moose's History of North America. It might be a fun little article if a couple more decent sources can be rounded up.  The Interior  (Talk) 16:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Farley Mowat's familiar with it: My Father's Son: Memories of War and Peace The Interior  (Talk) 17:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Flight of the Conchords
Hey The Interior - I was looking through the BoLP noticeboard and reading a few of the threads on there. I'm looking to get back into writing Wikipedia pages and noticed that you're a fan of Flight of the Conchords (rightly so, as they're awesome). I think their page could use a little work -- wanted to see if you have any suggestions before I get started. Svernon19 (talk) 20:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey Svernon. Always good to hear from people with good taste. The article's not in terrible shape, but from a quick look, here's what I can see for issues.  The "Appearances" section is more or less a laundry list.  For an entertainer, its a weird section.  Imagine if band articles had "gig" sections. They would get pretty long.  So I think most of the content in that section could be whittled down and re-written as "Early career" or the like.  Also, too much of the sourcing is primary, i.e. their website, HBO's website, YouTube clips (grrr...).  FOTC has reached a level of prominence where there's sure to be some good third-party profiles/long articles.  So maybe that would be a first step, finding some in-depth coverage.
 * I'm pretty busy with school right now, but I'd love to help you out if you're going to make a stab at cleaning it up. We could even think about Good articleness.  Anyways, welcome back to the Pedia,  The Interior  (Talk) 22:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Slumach
A user called Fred Braches has created a page called Slumach and another page called Pitt Lake gold find. On Fred Braches talk page he states that he has a slumach website. The articles Slumach and Pitt Lake gold find links directly to his website. Fred Braches is using the articles to advertise his website. Is this a conflict of interest. His website is located on the external links section of Slumach and Pitt Lake gold find. Do we need two articles about the same thing? Msruzicka (talk) 02:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The main page on Wikipedia policy/guidelines on external links is External links. That website, http://www.slumach.ca/, seems rather benign. It doesn't appear like anything is being sold, there's no ads. It does list various sources of information (without linking or selling), which seems useful. I don't really know where the line between acceptable and unacceptable external links lies though. Still, it isn't clear what benefit this guy would get from having more people visit his website, given that there's no ads or spam or stuff being sold. So I'm not sure any harm is being done (although I did not fully explore the whole site). There's another page on "conflict of interest", called, of course, Conflict of interest. Both WP:EL and WP:COI list "promoting personal websites" as something to be avoided, and I suppose one could justify removing those slumach links on this basis. But from what I've seen, the real concern with external links is links to pages that sell stuff, have ads, are not very useful, etc. ...just some thoughts. Pfly (talk) 09:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, and The Interior, I hope you don't mind my talk page stalking--I like having pages I've edited automatically watchlisted, although with talk pages it can result in "TPS", especially when I'm too lazy to unwatch pages. I wish the watchlist page provided a one-click "unwatch". Pfly (talk) 10:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This discussion is illuminating: Articles for deletion/Slumach. I'd agree with Pfly that this isn't the bad sort of COI.  From what I can see, the author has declared his COI, and has been working with other editors.  His website does advertise his book, but also is a great resource in itself.  It's complicated in a situation like this because the COI author may well be the best source out there for this topic.  Your choice of adding the cleanup tags was correct in my view, these don't seem to be glaringly deletable.  The Interior  (Talk) 21:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Jolly Jack
I have written an article about Jolly Jacks lost mine in Greenwood. If I upload it to wikipedia will it be deleted? Can you Save it? I have 4 sources what do you think.Msruzicka (talk) 20:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

About the discussion
To be honest, i think some particular users are really antagonistic towards me in general. Even if E-sports is not included under sports, the sources i have provided should be able to satisfy the GNG.

Sorry for the difficulty to follow my posts. This is a summary of the arguments on GNG.

Even more concise summary

 * Salvidrim stated that gosugamers.net/sgamer.com/178.com and others are unreliable sources due to them being focused on a few games and therefore should be considered as "fansites".
 * Salvidrim then compared it to sports:
 * Covering sports at large would be akin to covering entertainment at large
 * Covering a single sport (hockey, volleyball, baseball) would be akin to covering a single type of entertainment (movies, music, gaming)
 * Covering a single sports team would be akin to covering a single video game (it is likely if you devote time and effort covering that topic, you're either fan or a detractor, thus not neutral or disinterested).
 * He would not consider a website about (for example) the Montreal Canadiens and Ottawa Senators to assess notability for any individual players, but a site covering hockey would perhaps be able to assess such notability.
 * Redefining History noted this as a bad argument, in his opinion
 * Covering sports at large would be akin to covering e-sports at large
 * Covering a single sport (hockey, volleyball, baseball) would be akin to covering a single type of game (dota, starcraft, cs)
 * Covering a single sports team would be akin to covering a single e-sports team
 * He would not consider a website about (for example) Moscow Five and Natus Vincere to assess notability for any individual player, however a site covering dota (gosugamers and others) would perhaps be able to assess such notability.
 * Redefining History offered an explanation for GosuGamers.
 * Redefining History asked help from the IRC, in which they replied that the alexa ratings should be referred to. It seems that Gosugamers is reputable and reliable enough.
 * Thus he requested source checking on the following sites:
 * http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/prodota.ru
 * http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/pchome.net
 * http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/mymym.com
 * http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/178.com
 * http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/gosugamers.net
 * http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/sgamer.com
 * http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/replays.net

So whats your opinion on this? I feel that it satisfies as reliable. Redefining history (talk) 01:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Any opinions?
 * Hey RH. First, I am bit more familiar with competitive gaming culture than most editors because I've been recently helping a friend research a doc on gaming.  I've seen the insane fans and the physical extremes that gamers go through, also the huge stadium events in S. Korea. The cable TV stations devoted to 24-hour coverage of Starcraft events leads me to think that there is a high level of coverage in Korean sources, I don't read Korean so I can't verify this. So I'm a bit more inclined to support a specific notability threshold for gamers.
 * But these things need input from a wide base of editors, and should never be undertaken to "save" specific articles up for deletion. I'm not going to comment over at the guideline talk anymore, I'm a bit too busy with other things to devote a lot of time to this, I'm sorry.
 * Re: your sources - Now, I really do support using some "fan pages" for more obscure topics, but they have to be awesome fan pages. We're talking high quality info, not re-warmed press releases.  Which is mostly what I'm seeing.  There are higher level gaming publications out there, with named writers and editors and such.  You should be scouring those.  Talk to the people at the Video Games Wikiproject about what are good e-sports sources for wikipedia. And other language sources as well, if a newspaper or magazine in the person's home country is considered reliable, it can used.


 * And posting etiquette - please no more with the long copy-paste posts (especially the IRC logs). A good discussion on WP happens when people summarize what they're trying to say. (and post at reasonable intervals!)  It's the too long didnt read syndrome, we're all volunteers here, and noone wants to give up half an hour to figure what's going on in a talkpage thread.
 * My two cents (since you asked for it!) The Interior  (Talk) 02:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I would clarify that Korean sources are for Starcraft, as it is the main game played there. However, what i am talking about is DotA, so there probably aren'y any Koren sources for it. I am really disappointed that people list GosuGamers as a fansite as it works the same way as Goal.com (perhaps the discrimination between esports and football?) Redefining history (talk) 02:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Haha! I understood your thing about the TL:DR syndrome, hence i posted a really concise summary here :D Redefining history (talk) 02:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * These sites are the only ones giving live coverage/having journalists and editors over at the competitions to cover them, and offers the latest news as soon as they are made known to the public (e.g. even fresh news from interviews of the players themselves). I consider that high-quality news instead of re-warmed press. Redefining history (talk) 02:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It might be considered an act of civility to notify people when you quote/mention them or their words in an argument at a location they would be unlikely to see it. Just sayin'.Salvidrim (talk) 07:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

3000 lb. Nugget
Some historians have reported a story which started in the 1800s about a 3000 lb. solid gold nugget lost in Kootenay lake during it's transport. Should the story have its own article or should it go on the Kootenay Lake article? thanks for your helpMsruzicka (talk) 23:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Depends on how much info you have. If we are talking about a paragraph of text, definitely should go in the lake article.  If you've got enough content for a serious article, go that way with it.  The Interior  (Talk) 00:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Review please?
Hiya. I just posted my first "substantial" contribution for my school assignment. Is there any way you could please have a look and give me some feedback, let me know if I did it right, etc.? If you have the time :) I added a section under the Library article under "Types" (2.3 Academic libraries). It's just a little starting point for now, hopefully it will grow. Thanks! D- --FutureInfoPro (talk)(UTC) 03:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Excellent addition, FIP. Covered the topic well.  Only gripe would be the sourcing, I notice you've used a couple refs as "examples".  For a wide topic like this, secondary sources are preferable to primary "proof".  See WP:PRIMARY for tips on primary sourcing.  Also, you can use the "templates" option in the edit window to format your refs, otherwise they show up as bare urls.  All in all, though, great first effort and an improvement to the page. Tell your prof to give you at least a B+ ;)  The Interior  (Talk) 19:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks, brother. Let's keep our fingers crossed!  The Interior  (Talk) 02:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM October 2011 Newsletter
The October 2011 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. —Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 15:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Brian Taylor
I want to create an article about Brian Taylor. Brian Taylor's name is on this page British Columbia Marijuana Party. Brian was the leader of that party back in 2001. Brian is current mayor of Grand Forks British Columbia. He was featured in a CBC documentary called Cannabiz. He also ran his own magazine called Canabis Health. Is he notable enough for an article or will it get deleted? Mr. BNST (talk) 18:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Msruzicka, is that you? The Interior  (Talk) 18:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, this Taylor sounds interesting, should meet the notability guideline as an elected official. The Interior  (Talk) 18:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

NELHAED
I'd ask him if s/he means to indicate that's his name, and if so to say so on the userpage and disclose any relationship with NELHA. Daniel Case (talk) 17:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

RFA Dayewalker
Hi as per your comment - Could you provide some diffs to this dispute moderation that user Dayewalker has been involved in, thanks - Off2riorob (talk) 18:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey Rob, no offense, but as my !vote was a neutral, I don't think a lot of documentation is necessary. I don't want to argue with you on the RFA page, so I think I'll just let my comment stand. My position was based on a quick survey of his top edited Talk pages, specifically Barack Obama and Same-sex marriage, the diffs he provided in Q.10, and my personal experience working with him during the User:Babasalichai business last spring.  I respect that you feel differently, but I don't want to get in heated debate on the RFA page.  The tone of recent RFA's is indicative of why there are so few people volunteering for the bit.  Best,  The Interior  (Talk) 18:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * - Hi - The talkpage history of Same-sex marriage - there is nothing there at all that asserts any qualification for advanced permissions - User Dayewalker has one minor comment to that talkpage in the last eighteen months ? They have this one edit to this talkpage in a year and a half ? Please explain? Nothing that could be described as  dispute moderation - involving User Dayewalker. I am open to have missed something? "there are so few people volunteering for the bit" - is another discussion. In the last year he has three minor comments, to Talk:Barack_Obama - minor comments completely nothing that would qualify as per your description of "dispute moderation" - three minor comments in the last year?  and a couple of reverts in the last year? - Off2riorob (talk) 19:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, most of his work on the two talk pages I mentioned goes back to 2010. I checked out Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 69, it has some good comments by the user to keep a discussion on track. Talk:Same-sex marriage/Archive 15 also has some good comments and the settlement of an edit war. Are these posts slam-dunk arguments as to why DW should be an admin?  Not at all.  But they do demonstrate policy knowledge and an emphasis on discussion, which in my mind are important qualities for administrators, that's why I look at talk page posts when doing an RFA eval.  Perhaps now that you have demanded diffs of me, you could present some which illustrate why I am so off-base on my evaluation.  Or not.  It's a neutral !vote we are arguing here!  Best as always,  The Interior  (Talk) 23:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

What we have now ("often called gay marriage") is fine. That's the overwhelming circumstance, the situations 140 describes above would be rare occasions, and we shouldn't clutter the lead with fringe statements. Dayewalker (talk) 10:25 pm, 5 December 2009, Saturday (1 year, 10 months, 30 days ago) (UTC+0) - Just as a note here, I came back to the page and found that my comment above seemed to be taken as an excuse to declare consensus and edit war, I assure you I meant nothing of the sort. I find 140's arguments fringe viewpoints at best, and I think the article was fine equating the term with gay marriage, as was the consensus before he arrived. Dayewalker (talk) 6:19 am, 6 December 2009, Sunday (1 year, 10 months, 30 days ago) (UTC+0) - Agree with NatGertler above, consensus is overwhelmingly against you. Please stop edit warring on the article page, and continue the discussion here. Dayewalker (talk) 7:50 pm, 8 December 2009, Tuesday (1 year, 10 months, 27 days ago) (UTC+0) - Gay Marriage, Retstated - I'm starting a new section, as the above discussion has degenerated into a wall of text where it seems an anonymous editor using multiple IPs is trying to change the current consensus about using the term "gay marriage" in the lead. For clarity's sake, I'm bringing the new discussion here to a subheading. - My main question is simple, are there any other editors who agree with the IP that the term shouldn't be used here? Glancing above, I don't see any other questions to the consensus but if there are, I'd love to discuss the matter here. Dayewalker (talk) 9:43 pm, 8 December 2009, Tuesday (1 year, 10 months, 27 days ago) (UTC+0)
 * In over three years of contributing these are the total posts of User Dayewalker to Talk:Same-sex marriage - in over three years - nothing of investigative value at all - or as you claimed are examples of his abilities of his "dispute moderation" abilities. It seems you think two edits in passing commentary in the space of three years is a notable thing. I would prefer it if you clarified your comment that you have no diffs of any noteworthy "dispute moderation" that this user has been involved and contributed to . Off2riorob (talk) 00:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Rob, I'm not going to get into an argument over semantics with you. The posts you have copy-pasted here would meet my definition of a dispute being moderated (i.e. made less combative), but, YMMV. (Ha! I actually used YMMV in a post)  I'm not sure how productive this discussion is, though.  The Interior  (Talk) 00:07, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have moderated over a thousand discussions then. That is not moderation - it is three or four non noteworthy talkpge posts from twenty months ago. Off2riorob (talk) 00:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Neutral - user made three or four talkpage comments twenty months ago that I remember. Off2riorob (talk) 00:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Geez Rob, you know how much I respect you, but this is much ado about nothing. It's a neutral vote - let it go. --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 00:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * False comments in discussions are worth discussing and clarifying - the User:Dayewalker has got no  "dispute moderation"  in his edit history at all . He has got no content additions at all - his non admin closures at all nothing that says he has any experience worthy of supporting  his promotion as an administrator -  His recent worthless attacks on me is the reason I am not contributing  - users like that, they don't add any content and they upset content contributors so they leave. Off2riorob (talk) 00:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "His recent worthless attacks on me is the reason I am not contributing" is exactly why you need to step away, now. You're coming off as hounding an editor for expressing their opinion via a neutral comment in an open forum. It's unbecoming; please stop as the Interior has requested you to do. Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 00:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)