User talk:Mr. Stradivarius/Archive 13

I was sort of following along as to how a recent RfA was going (Jason's) and noticed your edits. While it's not uncommon for someone to reevaluate their position, there was something in your posts that made me want to stop by. The time you took to not only change and modify your original post, BUT, the way you explained not only the WHY, but your detailed thought process truly impressed me. After reading through what you wrote I felt as though I had actually met the person behind the "Mr. Stradivarius" moniker. I just wanted to say thanks for that. Hope all is well for you. — Ched :  ?  20:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Not at all. (But it should be Strad, not Strat - that's the difference between a

♪ talk ♪

01:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Regarding an article that you approved for deletion last August, I read through

Another participant voted delete with the perplexing reason "not enough significant coverage in reliable independent sources to warrant a page", despite the inclusion of numerous newspaper citations, including mentions in the New York Times. [1][2]

Most bothersome, one delete voter noted, "the template on the page does not link to this AFD for some reason". In other words, the only Wikipedians who were aware of the delete nomination were those browsing the articles for deletion page. Given that fact, is it much surprise that so little consideration was given?

To me, this was an unfair and hasty vote. It is worthwhile to note that I've defended this article before from certain editors who carry a personal vendetta against Chicken John. This page has received spiteful vandalism more than once. I suspect, in fact, this was the actual cause for its nomination. It's not difficult to hear bile and derision in the words: "Self-Promotional, and not-notable outside of the 'burning man community' and his own promotional affairs."

If you choose to restore it, I'd ask that you semi-protect it against deletion as well. This will be the 4th time admins have had to undelete. Thank you for your consideration,

-

Hi OrinR. I'll need my admin tools to investigate this fully, so that will have to wait until I get back home. For now, though, I'll just note that the first New York Times article you linked to doesn't have the "significant coverage" required by

♪ talk ♪

01:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, though I'm being meat-puppeted into this discussion as another wikipedia editor, I think there's more than enough to establish notability in this case. There are a number of articles written about Mr. Rinaldi, not just mentions of him in the press in the links cited by OrinR.

• Interview by Mother Jones
• book author
• Interview about Camp Tipsy in Huffington Post
• SF Examiner: 'Chicken John' Rinaldi clucking over eats in San Francisco's Dolores Park
• He was also an original member of the The Murder Junkies with GG Allin

And that's without any mention of being a mayoral candidate. Though I'm not sure he got a "significant amount of coverage in reliable sources" per WP:POLITICIAN for his mayoral run, he clearly has a significant amount of coverage when this is combined with the American Apparel, Dolores Park, Camp Tispy, and book authorship articles. There are 55 articles in the SF Chronicle alone mentioning him, and it seems clear to me that he's a notable San Francisco politician that being contacted by journalists when they want an opinion on a topic. If they think he's notable, WP should agree.

That said, I've seen an old version of the deleted article on a wikipedia mirror, and I'll agree with whomever referred to it as "self-promotional" in the AfD. If you restore the article, I'd be willing to clean it up into a 3 or 4 paragraph multiply referenced article that I think would satisfy everyone. Pro crast in a tor (talk) 02:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

PS: though I may be outing myself as an inclusionist by mentioning access/search statistics that don't establish notability, let me just note that there are enough people searching for his name that he even shows up in Google trends, and his WP article was accessed about 30 times a day before it was deleted according to grok.se, about as many as the more obscure articles on my watchlist like this. Pro crast in a tor (talk) 02:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

After looking at the sources again, I think you may both have a point. However, I can't just restore the article, as there was a clear consensus at the deletion discussion that it should be deleted. Instead, I have

WP:AFD again, but if you can prove the notability sufficiently well, it might not get deleted the second time around. Let me know if you have any questions about this, and I'll be happy to answer them. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪}

09:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Mr. Stradivarius for restoring the article to my sandbox. I've made a first cut, dropping it from 28k to 13k by removing content that was only cited on non-

WP:RS sites, and also adding in the references I mentioned. Seems a bit more reasonable to me, and I don't think the article would have a problem in the AfD process at this point. Pro crast in a tor (talk

) 11:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I've moved it back to the mainspace and nominated it at AfD again - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chicken John (2nd nomination). — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 01:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I was not the one who tagged the article. I only reverted the blanked page just before you declined the speedy.

Yeah, sorry about that. When I loaded the page you hadn't edited it yet, so I thought I was sending a message to the original tagger. Because of the edits inbetween when I loaded the page and when I declined the speedy, the script I was using got the wrong person. Technology sucks sometimes. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I was quite suprised when I got the message. Btw, can you speak french?

talk

) 16:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Enough to know that the subject was a member of Morning Musume. :) I've deleted the article as a G7 - the editor who blanked it was actually the creator, so the G7 tag that

Skamecrazy123 left was correct even though they self-reverted. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪}

16:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I self reverted because Huggle seemed to show four edits between the blanking and my addition of the template. --

Skamecrazy123 (talk

) 16:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

There were two edits since the blanking, but neither affected the validity of the G7. Even ignoring the fact that all the edits occurred in such a short space of time, which is a good indicator that not everyone was aware of all of the page history, you are still allowed to tag a page for speedy deletion after it has been contested if you are nominating it under a different criterion. So there's no problem with tagging something as G7 if it has been previously declined deletion as A7 - although if another editor thinks that the page should be kept then it should probably go to AfD instead. The timeline is a bit strange in this case, but I couldn't see any reason for anyone to object to a G7 deletion. Here's the page history if anyone is interested.

16:37, 2 February 2013 . . Torreslfchero (talk | contribs | block) (1,522 bytes) (Proposing article for deletion per WP:BLPPROD. (TW))
16:35, 2 February 2013 . . Skamecrazy123 (talk | contribs | block) (1,222 bytes) (Incorrect speedy deletion template (HG))
16:34, 2 February 2013 . . Skamecrazy123 (talk | contribs | block) (1,232 bytes) (Tagging page for speedy deletion, blanked or requested by creator (HG))
16:34, 2 February 2013 . . Mr. Stradivarius (talk | contribs | block) (1,222 bytes) (Speedy deletion declined. Being a member of Morning Musume is a good enough claim of importance to pass A7. (CSDH))
16:34, 2 February 2013 . . Torreslfchero (talk | contribs | block) (1,236 bytes) (Reverted edits by Akanaru (talk) unexplained blanking of page (HG))
16:33, 2 February 2013 . . Akanaru (talk | contribs | block) (empty) (←Blanked the page)
13:33, 2 February 2013 . . Bill william compton (talk | contribs | block) (1,236 bytes) (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD A7). (TW))
13:23, 2 February 2013 . . Akanaru (talk | contribs | block) (1,222 bytes) (←Created page with 'Akatsuki Iikubo (春菜暁 Iikubo Akatsuki est née en 1997 a Tokyoest une "chanteuse" de Morning Musume. Elle remplace Haruna dés qu'elle n'est pas dis...')

I'll be happy to give more explanations if anybody wants them. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 17:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I translated the message the user posted in my talk page. He actually wanted the page to be deleted which Stradivarius did. Thanks for deleting that page.

I tagged the page for A7 because Akatsuki Iikubo is not a regular member of Morning Musume. She's just a replacement for her sister. And, article didn't "credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject". What's wrong in that? — Bill william compton^Talk 17:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, the fact that she was just a replacement for her sister got lost in translation - my French isn't that good. :) But even so, it's still a vaguely credible claim to importance, as Morning Musume are/were a very big group in Japan, and I'd still probably have declined the A7. If the author hadn't blanked the page probably BLPPROD or AfD would have been the way to go. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 03:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Point taken. Thanks for the explanation! — Bill william compton^Talk 05:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for declining my nomination for deletion of Fritz Ritterbusch and then proposing the same article for deletion exactly five minutes later. - ʈucoxn\^talk 12:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, there is a difference between just deleting something right away and giving the community a week to comment on a proposed deletion... Have you ever read the essay "

Why I Hate Speedy Deleters"? It might be useful in explaining the attitudes of the wider Wikipedia community attitude to speedy deletion. (And it's also rather good for increasing tagging accuracy.) Give it a read, and then let me know if you have any questions afterwards. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪}

13:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, just some thoughts on the current stage of the RFC. Questions 1-4 seem to me to be technical questions about working out the mechanics of a functional RFC. Question 5 seems to touch on something more fundamental: core Wikipedia policy. As accurately summarized by yourself, there is a contradiction in the views expressed by different editors on how evidence (aka sources) should be used in the RFC, and I think this is something that needs to be discussed, with reference to our policy, to ensure that the RFC is consistent with and guided by our relevant policy. Dlv999 (talk) 10:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree,

WP:NPOV does have large ramifications for question 5, and it is something we definitely do need to discuss. My plan is to get question 1 decided, and then start discussions about all the other questions simultaneously, as none of them really depend on each other the way they do on the result of question 1. So it's not an attempt to skirt the issue, just a desire to discuss things in the most efficient order. Although if there's a reason that doing things in this order would not be a good idea, please do let me know. I'm not infallible, by any means. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪}

11:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I think we may be up against a language barrier. We asked for references, and all these people start showing up as "references", letting us know how great the studio is. This edit was my favorite. I've been trying to work with the authors, asking for actual sources, but they don't seem very communicative. Perhaps the deletion discussion will get their attention... ~

Hopefully the links I posted plus the {{

not a vote}} template I put on the AfD discussion will do the trick. I don't think there's really anything else we need to worry about, though. It seems kind of strange they aren't commenting at the AfD, but I have the article on my watchlist so I should be able to deal with anything else that comes up. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪}

09:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello! Hopefully it's not too late in the day to do it, but I've just added my name to the list of participants.     ←   ZScarpia   18:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure, no problem at all. Go ahead and comment on the latest discussion section, and let me know if you have any questions. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I was struggling with trying to get it like that. And now I know how.

Thanks! =) Kurtis ^(talk) 14:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) And we should probably put that in a guideline somewhere, if it isn't there already. (I can't remember for the life of me where I learned it.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Stradivarius,

I'm a new editor and I would like to participate in the Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion.

I recently joined Wikipedia as an editor after many years of seeing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict being taken over by zealots on both sides. I'm in favor of having both sides accurately reflected, so that the reader can use their own judgement to assess the situation. Since I joined Wiki as an editor, I've spent most of my time countering many of the one-sided POV that are keeping the articles from accurately reflecting a NPOV. I look forward to helping ensure that the rfc for Jerusalem stays neutral.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to let me know. I look forward to being part of this democratic process. SimplesC (talk) 15:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure, welcome to the team. :) You're welcome to start participating in the RfC discussion right now - just make sure that before you make any comments you read through all of the present discussion and through the archives as well. I look forward to reading your comments over at the discussion page. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Smrt_English

Dear Mr. Stradivarius, I am a teacher at the school that built the Smrt English curriculum and was interested in putting it in wikipedia, the school gave me permission to put it up. I have added several new sources to the Smrt English wikipedia page. It is a new company so there aren't many sources online but I can assure you it is a company and works with over 70 colleges and universities globally. I can send you a certificate of incorporation if you wish.

thank you Jeremy Clark — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerclark (talk • contribs) 04:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello there Jeremy. No, it won't be necessary to show me a certificate of incorporation. It's not in question that the company exists - the issue is whether it passes our

this simple guide to notability (although my apologies if it is a bit blunt). I think you may be misunderstanding Wikipedia's purpose: we document things that have already achieved note; we don't document things so that others may notice them. I hope this makes sense, but please do let me know if you have any more questions. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪}

04:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. Is is possible to put this page on hold until I find more reliable sources? I don't want to loose the work I have done if it is deleted. thanks again. Jeremy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerclark (talk • contribs) 17:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi again. The deletion discussion will remain open until at least February 17th, and possibly longer if there is low participation. That should hopefully be long enough for you (and other editors) to find reliable sources about the company, if they exist. If you don't want to lose your work, you can take a copy of the page now, or if it does end up being deleted then any administrator can email email you a copy. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, many thanks for pointing that out about my signature, I hadn't realised. Hopefully I have changed it so it works now. In fact, I will check it once I have saved this page :) thanks again  TUXLIE  16:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Edit: I have changed it again to go to my user page, as yours does  TUXLIE  16:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

This is to complain on User:Codename_Lisa, who reversed my changes regarding the removal of Windows 1.0 logo, which cannot be found on any media from 1980's-1990's and has appeared for the first time on February 17, 2012 on Windows blog for the comparison with the current Windows 8 logo. The reason he/she provides is: The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. We have three sources here.

However, In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. For which reason the Windows blog article and two derivated articles in PCMag and PCAdvisor are considered more reliable than photos and screenshots of Windows 1.0 retail boxes, distribution media, the operating environment itself which can be easily found on the web using Google where you for sure will not find anything similar to that logo? -- Aaleksanyants (talk) 12:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. It seems like you have got yourself into a content dispute. For that, you need to follow the steps at

third opinion. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪}

12:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for the fast response. Would you please check the dispute page at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Windows_logo_and_watermark_-_1985.svg , at least 3 persons (including me) claimed that the logo should be removed as there are no reliable sources to prove its validity, so how a single person decides to close the discussion only because some more disputed sources have been provided? Do I still need a third opinion? -- Aaleksanyants (talk) 12:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

In that case, the

dispute resolution noticeboard is your best option if you can't work it out between yourselves. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪}

12:51, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

There are now a whole load of reviews for AKOUSTIK on the net (See my own press page www.guymanning.com where these are all included / re-published) I thin k this page should be re-instated as it has not other purpose other than to objectively describe the album (as has been done previously with the other 12!) If somebody can state formally / explain to me why this ONE page is so different to its predecessor album pages, I would be most grateful If we cannot come to some amicable agreement on this, then the whole Guy Manning site should be deleted and I will go do that myself I have to say I do find this draconian and somewhat pedantic approach very taxing [Guy Manning Feb 18 2013] — Preceding unsigned comment added by GuyManning (talk • contribs) 21:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Guy. The forum you want is

deletion review and see what the editors there say. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪}

08:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

If each of album title links on the main Guy Manning pager went to the new Discography page then yes, this would be fine...and a good suggestion But I would want ALL the album details from each of the sub Album pages (including the Album Cover) on that Discography page (As details/players have changed over the years) - What do you think? Alternatively, the whole damn lot can go including the main page as I do not think anything about me or my work would qualify the WIKI policy guidelines in order to be deemed noteable!! [Guy Manning Feb 2013] — Preceding unsigned comment added by GuyManning (talk • contribs) 16:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear Mr S i would like to take part in this. Regards Upper lima 65 (talk) 22:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Upper lima. You're welcome to join the discussion, and I see that you have already left a comment on the discussion page. Go ahead and add your name to the list of participants as well. Just make sure that you read all of the talk in the archive and on the current page, so that you are up to date with everything that we have been talking about. And please feel free to ask me if you have any questions. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

[3] ... Only if you block yourself for an article you edited. Another interesting question -- does reverting yourself count as 1rr or 2rr? NE Ent 12:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Probably 1RR, but admins should be wary of giving themselves a first-mover advantage. It might be advisable for them to self-revert again to prevent themselves reporting their behaviour at

WP:AN3 for edit warring with themselves, what would the reviewing admin say? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪}

12:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, done. It works now, magic. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello,

Recently, a major change was made on the article

Since you participated to the RfC discussion on Talk:Flag_of_Western_Sahara, you might be interested by a related discussion on ANI or, at least, you might be interested in participating to the recently launched discussion on Talk:Flag of Western Sahara.

Regards,
--Omar-toons (talk) 08:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Mr. Stradivarius. I self-blocked myself here for a year. That's way too long. Could you please remove the block? Thank you and sorry for the trouble. My very best wishes (talk) 04:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

You can probably do it yourself if you turn off javascript in your browser. As for me, I won't be able to access my admin account until tomorrow night, so you might want to ask someone else if you want to get back into your account now. You should probably provide some proof that it's really you, too. :) —

♪ talk ♪

01:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is very simple. Thank you! My very best wishes (talk) 04:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Sign Language Link

Hello Mr. Stradivarius, The link sign language alphabet is a good resource of the hand shapes for students, teachers and parents.

Michael Bennett (ColoringBuddyMike) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coloringbuddymike (talk • contribs) 14:49, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. I removed your link because it seems redundant to the links to various sign language dictionaries that are already linked from the

Open Directory Project from the Wikipedia article, and you might be able to list your link at that project under the sign language category. Let me know if you think this is a good idea. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪}

11:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R204DESIGN

Hi Mr S, I notice you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R204DESIGN as 'soft delete' but as far as I can see it was never deleted. Do you know what happened? Sionk (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sionk. If you look at the page logs, you can see that I deleted it, but that

WP:REFUND myself). If you think it should be deleted again, I'm afraid it needs to go through another AfD. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪}

21:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes, there's just a declined request for restoration. Maybe I'll ask the King... Sionk (talk) 22:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Potential copyright violation: Office Picture Manager

Hi. There is a small issue in need of the attention of an administrator at :File talk:Office Picture Manager icon.png § Picture Manager icon. Hopefully, it does not need much discussion. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Images eh? Sorry, not my strong point - I'm afraid you'll have to ask someone who knows what they're doing. :) After a quick look around it looks like the admins Masem, Crisco 1492, Orangemike and Graeme Bartlett are all active in image/copyright issues, so you might want to try one of them. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Thursday

31st February? -- tariqabjotu 16:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

D'oh, I'm such an idiot... I should have waited until the morning to write those messages, obviously... — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 21:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

SPA tag for Knight of Infinity

Hi Mr. Stradivarius,

I think the SPA tag for Knight of Infinity in the AfD discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swfdec may have been an error. The editor is new, but seems to have made edits on many different articles. Thanks, --Mark viking (talk) 17:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mark. Unfortunately I think this user was recruited to !vote on Sarkar-related articles. The SPI is waiting to be closed; there are several possible meatpuppets listed there. Garamond Lethet
c 19:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't realize there was another context for this. Thanks for cluing me in. --Mark viking (talk) 19:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

No worries. Speaking of: Mr. Stradivarius, would you mind taking a look at the SPI and closing it as you see fit? There's an RfC !vote in the Sarkarverse that will be closing soon and I'd like to get the canvassing issue settled before then. Thanks, Garamond Lethet
c 20:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I won't have much time for this today. Possibly after I get back from work... — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 21:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I had a quick look, but I just don't feel well enough acquainted with SPI and how it works to close that report. You'd be better off asking someone with more experience there, sorry. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, and thanks for having the good sense to defer when you're not comfortable. I'll ping Toddst1 and see if he has time and inclination. Best, Garamond Lethet
c 15:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem

Is there any way I can be automatically notified when the actual Jerusalem RfC starts? Ryan Vesey 21:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I've started a list at User:Mr. Stradivarius/Jerusalem. There was someone else who requested to be notified as well, so I'm going to have to trawl through the archives and find out who it was and add them too. You can expect a message on your talk page when the RfC starts. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 21:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you much. Ryan Vesey 03:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

L1/L2

Hey, thanks for your comment about my request for sources on L1/L2 acquisition. Those sources were useful though not precisely what I was hoping for. I wonder if noone's ever written the kind of review of differences in learning mechanisms I was thinking of.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I looked a bit harder and found these two on Google Books: Paths of Development in L1 and L2 acquisition and First and Second Language Acquisition. Is that more the right kind of thing? The differences in L1 and L2 acquisition are an integral part of SLA study, so we have probably both just been looking in the wrong places. —

♪ talk ♪

01:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I happen to have a background in L1/L2 acquisition, TESOL, and the like. One text that's available online is Comparing and Contrasting First and Second Language Acquisition: Implications for Language Teachers by Ipek. I just skimmed it, and it seems like a reasonable outline; it certainly gestures to many of the big names in the field. A good one that I've read before (though a little bit older) is the chapter "Comparing and Contrasting First and Second Language Acquisition" in Principles of Language Learning And Teaching by H. Douglas Brown. If I think of any more, I'll let you know. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks both of you, at first glance those are much closer to what I was looking for! (Except for Meisel which I had looked and rejected because of its generative theoretical outlook)·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

GA template broken

Hi Mr. S, it appears your last edit to Template:GA/Topic added a hard return to the template that's causing it to display without the proper links. Could you revert? -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, taken care of. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I really should have noticed that. Glad to see it's been fixed. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 21:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for your work on the template. -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

note

Hello Mr. Stradivarius, Sm8900 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

thanks for your helpful replies at the page for discussing an RfC for the article on Jerusalem. I look forward to being part of the further discussion. thanks. Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox country#Edit request on 22 February 2013

There seems to be a misunderstanding - you asked for an example - but all we want is it reverted back to its normal format - before the image sizes was changed.Moxy (talk) 22:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

{{

sysop

}}

Thanks for doing the merge. –BuickCenturyDriver 10:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

No problem. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Page protection

Hi, Mr Stradivarius, and thanks for the note on page protection. I've created a subpage here for IPs and non-autoconfirmed users. I would very much appreciate indefinite protection, if you think it's appropriate. Thanks! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:10, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, done. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 23:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring at Rangers FC article

Hi. Sorry to have to bring this to an administrator, but an editor has made the same edit 3 times in 9 hours despite the article having a one revert rule. I don't think editors should be able to impose their opinions by ignoring the rules of the community - I assume you agree. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I've reinstated the semi-protection, but I don't have time to look into edit-warring allegations just now. Perhaps try

WP:ANEW? Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪}

21:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Resubmission

Hi Mr Stradivarius,

A couple of months ago I had an article deleted for reasons of notability. As you were one of the voting mods I'd really like to run the revised version past you to see if there's any improvement on the new version. I've put up a sandbox version here|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Travis_Booth_1985/sandbox .

I'd really appreciate any feedback you could give me here!

Thanks,

Travis Booth 1985 (talk) 11:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't remember commenting on an old version - can you give me a link to the

AfD discussion, or let me know the name of the old article? Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪}

13:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mr S, thanks for replying. You can view the discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ITEC_Group

Thanks again,

Travis Booth 1985 (talk) 08:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Infobox country edit

The edit you did yesterday at {{Infobox country}} seems to have caused some problems. If you expand the two examples at Template:Infobox country/doc, you'll see that both infobox displays now contain parser function error messages, and the population of Category:ParserFunction errors has increased from about 30 to 120. My knowledge of template syntax is pretty much nil, so I can't identify where the problem lies. Deor (talk) 00:41, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that's really odd - the problem didn't come up on the test cases page at all from the sandbox version, but appeared when I updated the main template. I'm not quite sure what happened there, but I've reverted for now. Thanks for letting me know. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 00:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, this was the problem - someone had set up the test cases with different parameters. Now that I've synched them this shouldn't happen again. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 00:52, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem reappeared with your 3 March edit. See, once again, the examples at Template:Infobox country/doc. Deor (talk) 14:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Sigh, sorry about that - I've reverted again. It looks like I will need to do a full code review before I try and put another fixed version up, and not just rely on the test cases. Again, thanks for letting me know. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The only actual mainspace article on which an error message cropped up because of your edit was Kyrgyzstan, although the parser function error did also appear in about 90 user sandboxes and such. Maybe there's a problem with the infobox syntax used in those pages, along with the template doc examples, rather than a problem with the edit per se? The other mainspace articles using the infobox don't seem to have had a problem with it. It bothers me, though, that the examples can't handle the edit, since it's the syntax in those that folks are likely to follow. Deor (talk) 14:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The issue is that now the HDI and Gini fields can only take numerical values, whereas before they could take any value. These errors are a remnant of infoboxes that did things the old way. I've changed the error message to make it a tiny bit more descriptive, and also so that it won't show up in Category:ParserFunction errors. Instead, mainspace articles that produce errors with the template will be added to Category:Country articles requiring maintenance. Errors in other namespaces won't be added to the category, but they will still show up in red inside the infobox. Hopefully this should keep everyone happy. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks. Now I (and others) won't have to wade through too much extraneous stuff in Category:ParserFunction errors to find things that really need fixing. Deor (talk) 16:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Poke

It may just be my weird sense of humor, but I got a kick out of this. Before I realized it was a templated message, I was trying to figure out why you said, "Subject to consensus, you should be able to

talk

) 17:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I suppose that probably did look a little bit strange. :) A nice custom message would have been much better; will file that away in my brain for next time. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 21:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Rhotic/Non-rhotic Question from Tagalog Talk Page

Hi,

My IP has changed but I was the person who asked the Rhotic/Non-rhotic question on this page. Thanks for taking the time to reply to that. I see now that my question was based on assumptions I was making due mostly to my own ignorance so I apologise for that. I get the impression that this is a general convention used by people who know what they're talking about and I was just seeing dialect bias where there was none. Anyway, this is getting rather long-winded for an apology and a thank you so I'll stop. Ta — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.58.253 (talk) 03:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi there! Maybe you have the wrong user? I've never edited

♪ talk ♪

06:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, turns out it was an ex-user and I just looked for the first sign of a place I could leave a message - I think I just clicked on the link to your talk page in your welcome message on his defunct user page without checking the context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.58.253 (talk) 10:58, 8 March 2013‎ (UTC)

No worries. :) Do let me know if you have any questions about editing Wikipedia though. We're always looking for more linguistics editors. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC

In the past few weeks I have been marginally present, and have taken time off here and there to try to keep my cool. At this point, however, I am fully active in reading and keeping track of comments. Having read everything today in the current threads, I find that I have nothing further to add to the current conversation. Arguments for or against certain types of evidence and defining meta-sources are of course worthy areas of discussion, but the points for and against these are being handled well and I don't have a definite opinion on which are more valid. So if I'm being silent, don't mistake this for non-participation. I'm just letting the details get worked out and I am satisfied the process is going well. ClaudeReigns (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

That's fine, and thanks for letting me know. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, I give.

I'm leery about adminship, but I give in. I'll run for it, if only so I can do more of the custodial duties at AfD without having to write "non-admin closure". What do I have to do to get started?

(｡◕‿◕｡)

07:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

PC1 Padlock

You're edit broke it. Do you mind changing it back? PP-meta doesn't support the white padlock.—

^Chat

_Online 17:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, reverted. Was the problem with the positioning of the padlock? I remember there being some problems about that before, but I was put off guard this time because it looked fine on my machine. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 17:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I've made some changes at {{

pp-pc1}}. It should be working now, but let me know if things have gone horribly wrong again... — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪}

18:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Nope. The padlock is invisible. If I was an admin, I could look at it tinker around with it, but I can't.—

^Chat

_Online 19:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind. It's working now. Thanks.—

^Chat

_Online 19:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Glad everything seems to be working again. As for not being able to tinker around with it, is there some reason that you couldn't do that in the sandbox? That's where I do my tinkering, even though I have the ability to edit protected pages. Alternatively, how about running for adminship? If you like I can review your edits to see if I think you're ready. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd love that. Although, I don't think I would pass just yet. I could go for the Protected Page Editor right, but that proposal, although had majority support, was closed as no consensus. :P—

^Chat

_Online 13:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Poke.—

^Chat

_Offline 14:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm a bit busy at the moment. I'll have a look over the weekend though. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

You'll need to send me a talkback for my attention. Looking on my talkpage will explain why.—

^Chat

_Absent 22:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Weren't you going to evaluate me? ;)—

^Chat

_Online 17:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, yes - I've been wiki-busy with other stuff as well, it had slipped my mind. I have some time today though, so I will do it later on. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 21:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

:)—

^Chat

_Online 12:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I've finally finished it - check your email. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 03:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC remarks

Hi Tariqabjotu. Thanks for your comments on the new question in the RfC discussion - I'm glad that it's seeing a nice healthy amount of debate. I just wanted to have a word about your replies to FormerIP there, as I think you might have misinterpreted his intentions. I see that there was some confusion about your use of the word "inconclusive", but I think that this was an honest misinterpretation by FormerIP. Saying that he's patronizing you[4] or that he's manipulating the word[5] is assuming a bad-faith motivation on his part, and I don't think he intended it like that at all. In any case, this is a little too much comment on contributors for the RfC page, in my opinion. If other things like this crop up in the future, could you take them to my talk page, or email me about them instead? I think that would be the best way to resolve any conduct issues while still keeping the discussion on track. Best regards —Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

That was hardly an accusation of misconduct, and I find it wholly unnatural to complain to you about a matter so trivial -- particularly when I assume you're monitoring the page and will call out misconduct if you feel something is such. Nevertheless, given FormerIP responded to the first remark you referenced by saying Your above statement is the first time I have been aware of someone from the other side of the hill acknowledging that there is inconclusiveness in the sourcing. It's a bold thing to accept because, obviously, it raises the question as to why our current wording expresses a conclusion., I'm not sure what exactly you thought I assumed incorrectly. It's a circuitous way of saying "So I see you've finally started to see the light", an expression I reject. -- tariqabjotu 02:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

You're probably right about the misinterpretation - perhaps that was a misinterpretation on my part instead. On the wider point, though, it's better to not bring up conduct matters on the RfC page at all, as that tends to create bad blood and stops people from working well with one another. Even if you think someone has tried to get a rise out of you, it's best to just respond to the content aspects of their comments, to prevent conduct issues from escalating. For really small things, it would probably get tiring for you to report them here every time, I agree. If you're going to bring up conduct issues at all, though, it should probably be here rather than at the RfC discussion. Hope this makes sense. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Your message

I am incredibly flattered (i need to lay off the adverbs I realize) by your message to me. I have a more extensive message on my talk in response to you, but I just want to let you know how much that kind of encouragement means to me. Thank you. Shadowjams (talk) 12:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Metalloid English language variety

Awesomely fast work Mr. Stradivarius. Thank you from Down Under. Sandbh (talk) 11:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome! —

♪ talk ♪

23:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to join Wikiproject Conflict Resolution

talk

) 09:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments at the WP:RESCON talkpage. I understand you feel that the new project is redundant, but in reality we will be taking off where WP:DRP leaves off with only a slight overlap. WP:DRP only touches a=on some content and is primarily for content. WP:RESCON is the opposit. It only slightly touches on content and only if that is the basis of the conflict and conduct issie, but we will not be attempting resolve the content if that is the main issue. It will simply be referef to DR or DR/N the very same way that DR/N refers to other venues when appropriate. Hope you will contribute when and if you feel inclined even if you do not join the project. I think you are a good editor and would be a plus to any project of this nature. Thanks.--

talk

) 22:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Infobox settlement Chile

Hi Mr. Stradivarius,

I would appreciate to know your opinion in the case of merging {{Infobox settlement Chile}} to {{Infobox settlement}} as proposed in {{Infobox settlement/sandbox}}. The discussion is in Template_talk:Infobox_settlement#Infobox_settlement_Chile. Feel free to ask more information that isn't given in the discussion.

--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 18:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Coat of arms of Western Sahara/SADR

Hello,

There's a discussion you might be interested in at

Talk:Coat_of_arms_of_the_Sahrawi_Arab_Democratic_Republic#Move?

.

Regards,
--Omar-toons (talk) 22:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

737 Park Avenue

Hi,

I'm writing because the last time I made an edit to this Wikipedia page it was flagged because of my previously stated conflict. However, upon review of the page recently, I noticed that there were some incendiary and factually incorrect piece of information regarding the eviction and harrassment of current tenants of the building. This is not at all the case, and reflects negatively on Macklowe Properties. Is there a way to remedy this in keeping with Wikipedia standards?

Best, Joe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe Gaspard (talk • contribs) 17:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

What I wrote was based on my experience. How could you say it is "vandal" when you know nothing of that case.

No matter if you get paid for what you did or said from Fatwallet, you have no right to stop other people to speak out the fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshuaPA (talk • contribs) 04:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted, because we are not allowed to base encyclopedia articles on personal experiences - they have to be based on

verifiability policy for more details. And Joe, next time you want an edit to be made to that article, please start a new discussion section at Talk:737 Park Avenue and include the text {{request edit}}. That will ensure that someone sees what you wrote. Let me know if you have any questions about this. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪}

08:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

FatWallet

Hi, I reported JoshuaPA for his edits as I think they are more vandal then just a disagreement of opinions. I added back your warning on his TALK page. Since your name was on it I wanted to make sure you knew. Your warning was better than mine but just in case that was not right wanted to make sure you knew what happened. Thanks Sallynice (talk) 14:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the message - I've blocked for three days for edit warring and violation of the

neutrality policies. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪}

14:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Wikify/tutorial

Template:Wikify/tutorial has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. GoingBatty (talk) 17:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

AC/DS comments requested

Hi, as an administrator who has recently been active at

WP:AE, you may be interested in AGK's request for comments at User talk:Sandstein#Draft of discretionary sanctions update.  Sandstein 

15:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Epoka University

Hi -- you have assisted on this article in the past -- could I ask you to take a quick look at recent activity, please? An IP editor is adding unsourced information ("nonsectarian", e.g. here) and otherwise mucking things up. Seems to be dynamic IP, so EWN won't be of much help, and there aren't other editors involved to keep tabs on it. thanks, —Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I've semi-protected for a month and left a note on the talk page. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Stradivarius: I would like to object on your support to the activity of Nomoskedasticity on Epoka University page. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable, and at this point, the only thing that can be verified is that allegations exist that EU belong to Gulen Movement. Thanks for your understanding and for preventing someone to show unprecedented bias on WP as Nomoskedasticity is clearly doing: one can just read the history of edits and verify the claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sefina (talk • contribs) 14:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sefina. Are you aware of any sources that state that Epoka University is non-sectarian, or any sources that contest that the University is part of the Gülen movement? If such sources exist then it might change the way Wikipedia policy says we should describe the University's relation to Gülen, but as it is we must follow the single source that we have, which says clearly that the university is part of the movement. Have you read up on our content policies, by the way? You'll want to read the most important three first - Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. And let me know if you have any questions after you finish. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Stradivarius: thanks for the reading suggestions. I'm taking a look on them. As for the non-sectarian part, the constitution ^[3] and the Law on Higher Education ^[4] makes such institutions to be non-sectarian by definition. Regards, Sefina — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sefina (talk • contribs) 12:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the constitution and the law on higher education, sorry, but we can't use them as references. This is one of the hard-to-understand parts of Wikipedia policy, so bear with me. We can only use things which mention Epoka University directly. It would seem to make sense to assume that Epoka University is non-sectarian because the constitution and the law on higher education say that it must be. However, on Wikipedia we are not allowed to assume things that aren't actually written in the sources that we use. All we can do is write things that other authors have written already.

The problem in this case is original synthesis. Saying that "Epoka University is a university in Albania<ref>some source</ref>" is fine. Saying "The Albanian constitution and law on higher education say that universities in Albania must be non-sectarian<ref>another source</ref>" is also fine. But saying "Because Epoka University is a university in Albania,<ref>some source</ref> and because the Albanian constitution and law on higher education say that universities in Albania must be non-sectarian<ref>another source</ref>, Epoka University must be non-sectarian" is not allowed. It would be using the two pieces of information to create a new, original, piece of information, and that is forbidden in Wikipedia by the "

consensus. I hope this reply helps - let me know if you have more questions. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪}

12:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Stradivarius: Again, thanks for your valuable comments. A little research on Epoka's website gave more insight on this institution than ever. Namely, the article 5 of Epoka's Statute says: “Epoka” University is a private, international and secular institution. ^[5] I think that now we can go with your formulation. This means that we should as well remove this information from the Infobox. As I don't have the rights to edit and bearing in mind that I am afraid that Nomoskedasticity's passion would come into play again, I think that you should take care of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sefina (talk • contribs) 12:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

It does sound like we can use that as a source, yes. I'm afraid that I don't really have the time to get involved in the debate, though - you'll need to do that yourself. I'll let Nomoskedasticity know about this thread, so we should all hopefully be on the same page with respect to policy. Let me know if you run into any problems in the discussion, though. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Stradivarius, I am afraid User: Sefina is engaging in edit warring. I have followed the debates with

Gulen Movement, which means he/she probably should not be editing at all on this as it would be impossible to be neutral. Just letting you know - sorry don't have time to deal with this too much. Vetevendosje (talk

) 18:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, one last thing [[User:Sefina|Sefina] keeps undoing the edits of others - I suggest you protect this page again.Vetevendosje (talk) 18:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi again, as predicted, passionate editors are again mucking the page and flagging the other editors with various attributes. Clearly, the WP policies are being violated here. Infobox is being constantly diluted against the rules defining its purpose etc. My stands on the matter are on the talk page of Epoka. Thanks for your understanding. Regards --- Sefina — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sefina (talk • contribs) 18:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• I have made a report at AN3; I disagree that protection is the right way forward, as Sefina is now autoconfirmed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks for letting me know. I think I will leave this to the admins who patrol AN3, though, as I have already expressed an opinion on the content here. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 21:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

editting the article kolkata

Sir i have find out some things about this and i want to update this. But it is a semi protected article so what can i do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anitek bhattacharya (talk • contribs) 10:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I've replied at User talk:Anitek bhattacharya. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

1. ^ http://www.livemint.com/Politics/7AmAud6bJ1of9J1fnfNfPN/Malalas-father-named-UN-advisor-on-education.html
2. ^ http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/Europe/Diplomatic-role-for-Malala-s-dad/Article1-984617.aspx
3. ^ http://www.parlament.al/web/Kushtetuta_e_Republikes_se_Shqiperise_e_perditesuar_1150_1.php
4. ^ http://www.google.me/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fuamd.edu.al%2Fmedia%2Fusers%2F4%2FLigji%2520i%2520Arsimit%2520te%2520larte%2520i%2520azhornuar.pdf&ei=RK9FUbDENIfE4gTi5ICoBA&usg=AFQjCNH0sqOz1VkbRLTHlKuERAjAsrGHPQ&bvm=bv.43828540,d.bGE
5. ^ http://www.epoka.edu.al/?lang=EN&pid=2&catid=1&menuid=404