User talk:Mr. Stradivarius/Archive 19

Ah, this sounds important. I was thinking that I need to establish a table with all responses, but while I need the text in the module, I don't need to assign them all? So I can use an if statement, to only assign the one I need. The very nature of the situation is that I need exactly one, so maybe I don't really need a table at all? I'll also look into metatables.--S Philbrick(Talk) 10:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm rethinking the approach, as I don't need to populate a table, just to use one item. (I suppose we could create a file, populate the file once,a ad read the single entry, but that's later, if it even makes sense.

I've outlined my new approach here Obviously, I need to fill in the language and other things, but this also solves my variable issue - I can define the parameter within the block, and only those I need.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Yep, that's a better way of doing it. I've standardised the indentation so that it's easier to see where the p.response function starts and ends. I've also put the key in lower case, so that you don't have to worry about matching both "afd" and "AFD", for example. And I've given an example of how you can use concatenation to make the code more readable - it's probably better to live with the slight overhead that concatenation causes in order to stop people having to scroll horizontally to read the response text. If you want to make that even more efficient, you could use mw.loadData to load the response strings from a submodule. That would mean that the concatenation would be done once per page, rather than once per #invoke. The only problem with that is that you can't substitute in variables directly with mw.loadData, because the data has to be the same for all the #invokes on a page. To solve that, you could do something like this:

-- In the data module:

return {
	afd = 'the afd page is [[$1]]',
	a = 'the userlocation is $2',
	...
}

-- In the main module:

local data = mw.loadData('Module:Data module')
local response = data[key]
response = mw.message.newRawMessage(response):params(afdpage, userlocation):plain() -- substitute the $1, $2 etc. parameters
return response

But, as I said, there is more than one way to do it. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

... to help resolve the remaining errors found in s:Module talk:Category handler/testcases over on Wikisource. I've managed to get it down to just five bangs - 4 of which just seem to be something simple that I can't nail down but the last one worries me in that Wikisource has a formal namespace labeled Page: (ns-104). Any help is appreciated & thanks for your time. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

@George Orwell III: You needed to change the "demopage" config setting to something other than "page", to stop it from clashing with the Page namespace. I also needed to fix the test cases to use the new parameter name. There isn't really any need to copy the test cases, though, because as long as they work on enwiki the module is verified as working. The rest is just a matter of changing the settings for that wiki. But, I fixed them anyway. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

...you were going to call the "Parameter names example" template by another name, what would come to mind...? Sardanaphalus (talk) 09:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

"Parameter names example" sounds fine to me. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I'm thinking, though, that "

Pnex" looks too enigmatic amongst most /doc pages' content, so I'm considering creating and using the redirect {{Generic demo}} instead. Sardanaphalus (talk

) 07:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead, if you want to. I don't think it matters too much what it's called, so long as the output looks ok. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

In case the template does see wider use, I thought it may as well have a more friendly-looking other name. Thanks for your feedback, Sardanaphalus (talk) 07:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

...and in case you wondered: yes, the redirect is now {{

Generic template demo}} rather than {{Generic demo}}. Sardanaphalus (talk

) 11:35, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

The reason why I haven't become an admin is because one time I read on this site you have to be 18 to be an admin. I can't find it anymore but I remember seeing it. Also because I feel like I am not always active and don't have time to be on here, if I get some more articles created and more edits maybe I can be a viable candidate who knows? Right now I feel comfortable and I feel like I am contributing to Wikipedia the best I can. Thanks! JayJay^{What did I do?} 17:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @JayJay: There was never a rule that you had to be 18 to be an admin. Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Ha weird I always thought it was! JayJay^{What did I do?} 17:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

@

open channel

) 18:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes! That's what it was. Wow I feel kinda dumb now JayJay^{What did I do?} 18:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

...by {{

Good idea - done. To override the default action you can just use the _template parameter. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for implementing – and for pointing out that |_template= can provide the override. Much more elegant. Regards, Sardanaphalus (talk) 18:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

M wikifacts (talk) 13:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC) People have lives outside of Wikipedia, so my entry within the Talk Consensus discussion never took place, nor any talk whatsoever in regard to a formal EDIT that represents the new data and the old data.

A formal LOCK has been placed on the website which contains erroneous data which I did not place. This needs to be undone, as it is a manipulation of control in regards to the historical context being discussed.

The entry that was done in the talk section was not done by myself. That is merely another editor obviously getting involved. One entry, by merely one individual, on a topic that is clearly sensitive to many, should not be abused in this manner. This discussion of Consensus cannot be resolved in an immediate fashion, or overnight without all parties coming to a conclusive agreement on exactly what should be said.

These accounts are taking control of a topic in an abusive way without abiding by policy and are stating policy without actually reading/abiding/understanding the policies they claim in their statements.

My edit, that contains fact as opposed to the erroneous data that existed, should not be removed and tossed aside in favor of the erroneous data.

Something at an Administrative level needs to be done about this. Editors that are not involved in the discussion, that have an established editing practice on other pages need to involved in a neutral manner with the data provided. M wikifacts (talk) 13:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

@

♪ talk ♪

15:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

silent way
Thank you, skeptic violinist who knows "that men and women will act rationally when all other possibilities have been exhausted", for quality articles on language acquisition such as

awesome Wikipedian

!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:28, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 563rd recipient of my

@Nahnah4: Here are the edits where it was edit-warring with itself. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

On a related note, exactly what implications does the new {{pp}} template have on how we apply protection templates? →Σσς. (Sigma) 04:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@

pp-protected}}, as the latter now redirects to the former. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪}

05:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Was this the intended result of your edit? Mjroots (talk) 05:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Whoops, I forgot to check for double redirects, and there were quite a few. Fixed now. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I see you just made edit on Robin Williams. I negotiated acceptable language with admin John and received his 'thanks' for edit pm for my acceptance of his proposed language over 3 hours ago, but still no article action. Can you please make approved edit? It is already admin approved, just needs doing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Robin_Williams#Protected_edit_request_on_14_August_2014 Thank you Paulscrawl (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@

edit protected}} template above your request to alert patrolling admins. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪}

22:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not asking for consensus on previously accepted content, but I might be asking for user ban - It was already in the article and only taken out by disingenuous edit of user who deleted content and added unrelated content of his own which later got deleted. See deletion of content with "Add details" edit summary Paulscrawl (talk) 22:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I can't see anything

consensus, not by blocks, though, in my opinion. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪}

23:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The wife of Robin stated that the actor/comedian was sober at the time of death, but suffering from the early stages of Parkinson's disease, a progressive and debilitating neuromuscular condition — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxo helen oxo (talk • contribs) 00:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

@

edit request at Talk:Robin Williams before this can be added to the article. I imagine that editors are already talking about this over there, in fact, so you might want to check the rest of the talk page first. Good luck. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪}

10:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I found out you, recently answer a lot of edit requests as "Not done for now" and let they edit the sandbox page, and then reactive the request. I think it is bad.S/s/a/z-1/2 (talk) 23:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

@Ssaz 12: Why do you think it's bad? The alternative is for me to write the code myself, which can sometimes be a lot of work. I will generally make trivial changes myself, but I don't think we should be equating "edit request" with "coding request". — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 23:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

An RFC on an article you recently edited is being conducted at Talk:Joni_Ernst#RfC: Can material that is critical to the subject be included in the article? - Cwobeel (talk) 03:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Stradivarius, Thank you for your advice related to my edit request on the EDF Talk page. I believe I have provide the information you requested, albeit a bit delayed. Would you be able to review the edit again? Thank you, Kent 21:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kent Strauss (talk • contribs)

I believe the sentence about Zoe Quinn being harassed on the Zoe Quinn page should include the word "allegedly", as there seems to be no evidence that she was harassed. The closest thing to evidence she provided was a screen cap of two mean spirited comments about her made by anonymous users on some message board. However, the comments were about her, but not directed at her. So, while not flattering, they do not qualify as "harassment." If I were to go on a message board and post that Bill Gates is a douche bag, you would not say that I was harassing Bill Gates. In order to harass Bill Gates, I would have to actually contact him and call him a douche bag. Simply stating my opinion that he's a douche bag on a forum not directed at him, and that he isn't required to read, does not constitute "harassment."

As for the harassing phone calls that Quinn claims to have received, I can find no evidence for this whatsoever other than her word for it. She may or may not have received harassing phone calls, but, unless there is proof that she did, it's important to clarify that this is only an allegation.

This is why I believe that the sentence on the Zoe Quinn page that reads "In attempting to publish the game through Steam's Greenlight service, Quinn was the target of harassment both online and through sexually explicit phone calls." should be changed to say "In attempting to publish the game through Steam's Greenlight service, Quinn was ALLEGEDLY the target of harassment both online and through sexually explicit phone calls." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephf5 (talk • contribs) 06:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

@

consensus there before the article can be changed - this message to me won't actually affect things much. And I recommend that you read Wikipedia:No original research first. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪}

06:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I can be reached at [email protected]. Thanks for your time.

Sincerely, Antonin Mongeau 216.155.145.67 (talk) 23:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC) Occupy Toronto

Hi Antonin! Sorry, but I don't really have an interest in the movement, and there are lots of things on Wikipedia that I don't have time to do. I don't mean to sound harsh, but I just don't have time to do all the things that I want to do on this site. You might have more luck if you ask at

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canada, though. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪}

23:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

You might also direct your question to Wikipedia:WikiProject OWS.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, that's 3 reverts, I should stop, but I'm not over.

It's interesting that BLPTALK includes "and not related to making content choices", but you must be reading it wrongly, or the the wording must be incorrect. Do you really think it would be ok for someone to post "I support adding a section describing how this person eats babies" at a talk page? And it could not be removed because it was about "making content choices"? Johnuniq (talk) 23:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I think this is badly worded in the BLP policy. When I look at the wording as it was originally added, it seems to directly contradict the preceding paragraph. I doubt that an exception for material related to content choices was intended there, and I've started a discussion on the policy talk page to clarify this. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 01:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed an example (diff)—is this removable per BLPTALK? Johnuniq (talk) 00:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry for the shitstorm that occured on the Zoe Quinn talk page.

Your's truly- 24.170.47.108 (talk) 09:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I am very upset that the Zoe Quinn ewiki page isn't even mentioning the [redacted] saga, I have seen through the 5,000 word post (the zoepost) the [redacted] did happen, and I for one would want gaming history to know of this. I'm asking you for I saw you were the last to edit it and it been locked from the public from adding any amount of truth. I would like to see the proof within thezoepost be shown and taken as facts, with screen shots and all. I am unable to link them. For I'm stuck on my cell phone, but this is a matter I follow closely and want what I think is the best soure of information to have all the facts presented. Thank you for your time

This has all been said on

section about talk pages in the biographies of living persons policy. I've redacted a couple of things in your post here. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪}

06:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@

WP:AN stating your case; if the discussion ends with a consensus to lift the ban, then it will be lifted. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪}

21:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the help and your patience throughout this mess.

talk

) 23:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, can you add a semi Protection for the page Stateless nation to reduce vandalism. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vatasura (talk • contribs) 18:45, 26 August 2014‎ (UTC)

Hi Vatasura. There haven't been any vandalistic edits since the last protection expired, so it doesn't look like it is necessary to protect the page just now. If it becomes necessary in the future, you can leave a request at

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

21:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I wanted to reach out and ask a question about the Zoe Quinn quagmire. I wanted to asked you spefically because you seem to be active there and trying to keep it objective and I might have evidence that some of the individuals participating in the conversations on the talk page have a personal tie to the subject. If I did, how would I go about addressing that? ~~Ron--70.185.196.205 (talk) 05:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The place to do that is

sockpuppetry and throw-away accounts used for undisclosed paid editing, etc., many established users are more likely to trust users with a few hundred edits under their belts than they are new and unregistered users. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪}

07:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for the help. ~~Ron --70.185.196.205 (talk) 02:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately I am heavily involved in some sort of edit war concerning the illustration of several Opera articles. Personally I feel persecuted by User:Michael Bednarek and I feel the urge to accuse him of vandalism because when ever I find a proper image showing an Opera scene he replaces it with architecture or the composer declaring that this is standard procedure. I am very desperate now (and upset). I want to use dispute resolution, but - having never done this and english not being my mother tongue - I don't know how to do it. He is currently destroying all my work in Ariadne auf Naxos, Der Rosenkavalier, Elektra and Salome. And I feel so humiliated. Please help.--Meister und Margarita (talk) 14:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Some of the discussion is going on in

The Magic Flute's Second Part.--Meister und Margarita (talk

) 15:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@Meister und Margarita: I haven't looked into this in detail, but it sounds like this isn't vandalism - rather, WikiProject Opera seems to have worked out a consensus for what opera articles should look like, and your edits seem to go against that consensus. I might have the details wrong, but at the very least it's clear that no-one's edits here are vandalism. Now, a consensus doesn't have to last forever - it is always subject to refinement or change through reasoned discussion. First I recommend calmly raising the issues you are concerned about on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera, and if that discussion doesn't find a resolution you are happy with, I recommend filing a case at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. They will help you with any extra steps that may need to be taken. Hope this helps — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 00:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

{{|}}. Thanks for your reply. I already visited Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, there it said: If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you. You are listed as one of the volunteers and so I came to you. Regarding the consensus: There is new consensus that the composer boxes be moved to the bottom of the page = exactly what I did. Nevertheless, Mr. M.B. is still insisting on the old Consensus and undoing all my work. IMHO it's now him standing up against the will of the majority. This is my complaint.--Meister und Margarita (talk) 07:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@Meister und Margarita: Yes, this is me giving you the helping hand right here. :) I'm afraid my powers as a volunteer at DRN are quite limited (and I haven't actually handled any cases there in quite some time). I can't, for instance, tell anyone to write the articles in a certain way. All I can help you to do is to find a consensus. And from your description here, it sounds like rather than an "old" consensus and a "new" consensus, and various people following each, what you actually have is "no consensus". And mediating a dispute which doesn't yet have a consensus is out of "helping hand" territory and into dispute resolution territory. If you've already discussed this on a talk page and haven't reached a satisfactory conclusion, then a full-blown case at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard is the way to go. But beware - they do require a talk page discussion, so you can't skip that step. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation and your understanding.--Meister und Margarita (talk) 13:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Conflict has been resolved with the help of Pigsonthewing. Regards, --Meister und Margarita (talk) 18:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello again. My "things to ask Mr. Stradivarius" has risen to three, so I thought it was time to leave a message:

1. Module:List/sandbox : I took a guess at how to add liststyle, itemstyle, etc as alternatives to list_style etc and it appears to've worked – if so, should making the same additions to the live version work without problem? (Changing names already in use may be a hassle, but I thought I may as well try to add and start using those already established by {{Infobox}}, {{Sidebar}}, etc.)
2. Module:Parameter names example : If it's possible (and not too tricky) to do so, do you think it would be worth adding an option to present the code producing the example/demo beside the example/demo (in some kind of <code> or <pre> style)..? I'm wondering if it might, as I keep seeing the redundancy of e.g. code in a pre section followed immediately by the very same code used to call a template. I'd try to see if this could be done using wikicode/HTML, but there may be no point, either because it can't and/or the result might not translate to Lua and/or...
   (As there doesn't seem to be a template offering this already, perhaps it's something that's too self-referential to implement..?)
3. What do you make of Template:Lua/sandbox (as appearing on Template:Lua/testcases)..? I'm also wondering if "Uses Lua" might be a more futureproof template name.

Regards, Sardanaphalus (talk) 17:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• A "ping" in case you've lost sight of the above. Hope all well. Sardanaphalus (talk) 11:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

@Sardanaphalus: Thanks for the ping. I'll take those in order:

1. Nah, we only need one name for those params. Are you telling me that I did all that parameter-changing for nothing? :) Also, this should be talked about on Module talk:List so that other editors will see it.
2. This would be possible, but I think the order of the parameters might get jumbled up. I'll have a look at it.
3. I think you're making this too complicated. Just a list of modules would be fine. This is another thing that should probably go on the template talk page, in my opinion.

Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for your replies and – despite what looked like a lot of activity here on your talkpage – prompt work on the {{
  Pnex}} module. I've seen the posts you've also made at Template talk:Parameter names example
  , so will respond there. (In a nutshell: Looks promising and I hope it'll prove possible to tailor the output without difficulty.)

I'll also respond to 1. and 3. above by starting threads on the corresponding talkpages (as you suggest). Just for the record, I think the parameter-changing work was – is – certainly worthwhile as (if I remember correctly) it disambiguated the numbering – I just wish it'd occurred to me then to suggest making the names consistent with the Navbox/Infobox/etc pattern. Thanks again, Sardanaphalus (talk) 23:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Nabih Berri § WikiLeaks and the corruption section

 – — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 03:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

If we can't discuss it on the talk? The content you reverted is directly related to making content choices, and you should not remove it. I'm not going to revert you again but am going to ask that you self revert. It's impossible to reach a consensus when any attempt to do so would be shut down. Tutelary (talk) 00:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Those were some pretty serious allegations, and the sourcing was dubious (Reddit and Talking Ship in particular). We can discuss claims that appear in reliable sources, but we can't repeat poorly sourced, problematic allegations. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 00:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Stradivarius,

I let a message/question for you in Talk:War_of_the_Pacific#Request_to_close_the_discussion_of_the_RfC. --Keysanger (Talk) 04:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello,

I have replied to you on the article's talk page. I hope the changes could be implemented soon and the article protected for a lengthier period.

Thank you, Callsfortruth (talk) 18:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Stradivarius,

This is a follow up to the talk message left on 21:58, 5 June 2014 (UTC), Titled Mason Bendewald Page Deletion

I'm requesting to reinstate Mason Bendewald's wikipedia page under the following wikipedia guidelines Nobility:People, Creative Professionals, 3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

Mason Bendewald Wikipedia Page [[6]]

It is well-known that Mason Bendewald played a major role in the creation of P90X as the director of this project. His name is listed on back of the box cover as director and see below for links to supporting sources. ^[1]

Supporting Source:

^{[2][3][4][5] [6][7]}

It is also well-known that Mason Bendewald is the Chief Production Officer at DailyBurn and has played a major role in directing their fitness videos. See below for supporting sources.

^[8][9][10]Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).

It is also well-known that Mason Bendewald played a major role by creating the Reject Film Festival in Philadelphia, PA. See below for supporting sources.

^{[11][12][13][14]}

If I need to redraft this page, I can do that, I appreciate your expertise and knowledge of wikipedia.

Johnnyoro (talk) 19:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)Johnnyoro

@

Articles for Creation, as then it will be reviewed before being made live, and will be less likely to be deleted. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪}

23:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

In the last 24 hours there have been several articles on the controversy http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/09/04/gamergate-a-closer-look-at-the-controversy-sweeping-video-games/ http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2014/09/gamergate_explodes_gaming_journalists_declare_the_gamers_are_over_but_they.html http://stream.aljazeera.com/story/201409032102-0024126

In it, it cites there was a censorship controversy in Reddit and "perceived radio silence on the part of the press" which "led to early grumblings of ‘censorship’ among gamers crying foul play". An alleged DMCA takedown on YouTube by people involved in the controversy (don't want to cite names since, as I said it's alleged. DDOS attacks on sites against their "game jam" (The Fine Young Capitalists) in itself a feminist game jam.

Please try to be neutral about the subject, I'm not in favor of attacking Zoe Quinn, just include facts about the CONTROVERSY of gaming journalism, which her game is in the center of. At least there should be mentioning of it. Also where would I go into discussing the blocked talk page of her article? And if this is libel against living persons, this isn't attacking her, it's not talking about her personal life. Just the controversy surrounding her, aside a lot of different people and sites 200.59.78.239 (talk) 21:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. This should probably go on

autoconfirmed. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪}

23:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I'm incredibly stupid or blind and just can't find where I'm supposed to click, but even the talk page seems to have been locked. Could you look into it? I don't know who else to contact. I was able to post there before, and now not. Willhesucceed (talk) 11:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

@Willhesucceed: You need to make three more edits, and then you will be autoconfirmed, and will be able to edit the talk page. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I noticed that you refused to author a change to this article despite the fact a RFC section was conducted with the majority of the contributors were in favour of a change. I know the RFC is very very long with the main instigators being Keysanger and Eddy. However if you look at the contributions of user User:Eduardo Eddy Ramirez you will notice that this user is merely a single purpose account which attacks Keysanger on the article. That’s all this account has done and it’s possible that this user might be a sock-puppet. Furthermore the contiguous paragraph which the RFC aims to change uses a citation that links to a Biography of a famous Chilean Romance novelist which by no means is a history book or a valid source for this article. However User:Darkness Shines uses a large chunk of the RFC to defend this citation as legitimate. With the information I have given you I would very much like for you to change your view on this issue or even refer this matter to another administrator. Furthermore please look into the actions of user User:Eduardo Eddy Ramirez. I will not name the editor but user Eddy resembles a current editor which has been topic banned indefinitely on Latin American history in addition considers Darkness Shines a "friend".202.67.124.213 (talk) 10:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you look at gerrit:158323 and make sure you're okay with the differences between Module:Arguments and it? I mentioned the major breaking changes at Module talk:Arguments#Integrating with Lua. (I'm at a loss as to why my ping there didn't work.) Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

@Jackmcbarn: I got the ping, I just didn't have time to look at the code when I got it. I've made some comments on Gerrit now. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The sources i have issues with are the journalistic sites, There has been a recent outcry over the integrity of these sites. I'll try to find a source that documents the outcry (I have seen the source somewhere) but the general consensus among the gaming community is that quite a few gaming sites have little ethics. Retartist (talk) 23:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

We don't determine reliability of a source based on another source's say-so. Instead, we use the rules at

Talk:Zoe Quinn, not here.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪}

10:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Stradivarius, I've pinged you 2 times at Template talk:Lang-ka. Can you please make changes? Jaqeli 15:30, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Done. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 23:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello again Stradivarius, please check again the talk page of Lang-ka. Thanks. Jaqeli 23:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Please see Lang-ka again. Thanks. Jaqeli 18:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

hi

modification you made to the article Nabih Berri are being reverted by the user callsfortruth, obviously changes conducted by this user are a clear violation of BLP rules and show a case of vandalism

thank you for reading — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lebanesetruth (talk • contribs) 08:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced content? Huh. Why don't you get some other admins to look into it? It his highly unethical and suspicious on your part to removed content that is actually sourced under the pretext that the section names are negative. Kindly recheck your behavior. Callsfortruth (talk) 09:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Callsfortruth: Yes, unsourced content. For example, "[he] is thought to maintain his support base through access to state funds." And "Assi's deals are seen as highly controversial, since the founder of the Amal Movement, Musa al-Sadr, is known to have been disappeared on the orders of Gaddafi himself." Those are both unsourced. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The first one is mentioned in the reference immediately before. The second one, regarding Gaddafi being responsible for Musa al Sadr's disappearance, this one I can get literally countless references for, but it is common knowledge and Lebanon disrupted diplomatic relations with Libya for thirty years because of that. Furthermore, if two statements were unsourced, which they are not, this doesn't allow you to remove all other edits. Callsfortruth (talk) 09:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, I believe that User:Talal.talal1 should be blocked indefinitely for consistent sockpuppeteering and not just his newly-created sockpuppet. Callsfortruth (talk) 09:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@

original synthesis when you cite it, as well - the source must mention the disappearing of al-Sadr in connection with Assi's deals.

I don't want to block User:Talil.talil1 again just yet, as User:Lebanesetruth only became active after Talil.talil1's previous block expired. I'm hoping that this user can go back to the Talil.talil1 account and edit productively, but if similar accounts show up I may block Talil.talil1 again.

Finally, you mentioned in one of your edit summaries that I have "no right" to undo your edits, but actually, no user on Wikipedia has a right to write content exactly how they want, or even a right to use the site itself. See Wikipedia:Free speech for more about this. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪}

09:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Callsfortruth: you're taking this article too personal and keep reverting edits conducted by users and admins and you keep complaining that your knowledge in Wikipedia's rules is bigger than an admin's while it clearly shows otherwise, anyone reading the edits you made to this article clearly sees how personal you're taking it, please keep your edits neutral as it clearly states by wikipedia and stop trying to distort the image of living people

as for Mr. Stradivarius I can only say thank you for applying Wikipedia's rules and keeping it to the book. talal.talal1 (talk)

There is an ongoing merger discussion at

@

WP:ANRFC, and I'll take a look at it if I do manage to find the time. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪}

04:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Got it. I'll post at the board. Thanks very much! RGloucester — ☎ 04:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Painting101 seems to be a new sock there - or a meatpuppet, gets autoconfirmed and then targets the article in less than an hour.

@

Dougweller: This is a bit late and only tangentially related, but I saw this comment at the Lebanesetruth SPI and thought here would be a good place to reply. You said that Painting101 managed to get autoconfirmed in a couple of hours, but that's only the time after they made their first edit. The four-day count for autoconfirmed-ness starts when a user registers, not when they make their first edit, and Painting101 had registered a few days before. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪}

08:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I forgot about that.

talk

) 11:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Please consider removing the page protection for Template:Update-small (protection log). It was protected due to being "highly visable" yet only has 14 transclusions. Not a major issue, but I do thank you for looking into this. Senator2029 “Talk” 01:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Done. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 01:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Senator2029 “Talk” 19:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Stradivarius. FYI, I have nominated a bunch of obsolete football competition editnotices, some of which you created, for deletion. You are welcome to participate in the deletion discussion. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 07:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Just to let you know that this happened. Apparently he believes that he did not sock and all the proof at the SPI report is me and @SNUGGUMS: agenda to get him blocked. Welp. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 07:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

This is not accurate at all. That post was my reaching out and apologizing for any kind of hinderance I may have caused him, and I simply forgave him for accusing me of socking on over 25 separate occasions with absolutely no proof. He regularly called users who challenged his edits by my name, much to their confusion and frustration, and I absolutely did not appreciate it. I rightfully pointed out that making any kind of accusation without proof is harassment, and to do it 25 times is absolutely ridiculous, but I forgave him because I want to move on. The "archive" he links to has several instances in which this user and another accused me of using a sock and it was found out that these allegations were inaccurate and baseless. There are two instances on that page in which I was blocked, and while I will continue to maintain that these accounts were not operated by myself, I understand why I was blocked. There was evidence, no matter how flimsy or circumstantial it was. He accused me dozens of times of operating accounts that were located in different countries, which is absolutely impossible unless I had actually moved to that country specifically for the purpose of making a sock puppet account. The only one with a conspiracy theory is the user above. I absolutely maintain that I socked on the ARTPOP talk page and have apologized to this user for doing so, so for this user to claim that I believe that I "didn't sock" is a flat out falsehood. I would urge you to read the post I made and not this filtered summation that this user has posted here with a passive aggressive "welp" in an attempt to make me seem completely unapologetic for my past actions. He has been discussing the fact that I will be seeking an ANI lift on my ban (that has lasted over half a year) with the user that he has regularly worked with on several failed attempts to have me blocked (several of which took place during a four month hiatus I had taken from this site due to how anxiety-inducing it was to have to log in every day and face another false accusation) after it was discovered that their allegations were false, presumably to warn each other so that they could attempt to have this ban extended indefinitely. I also forgave the other user that IndianBio affiliates with (

talk

) 06:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm no goody-goody two shoes, Reece, and neither is IndianBio, but your socking wasn't any better- CheckUser detected you socking on multiple instances. I gave your offer thought (not an immediate delete), but ended up declining as I wasn't confident in you not socking again. Regaining trust won't be so simple after that. As admin Ponyo once said, you shot yourself in the foot in terms of credibility by socking on Artpop. Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

CheckUser indicated that I had socked twice, not the vague "multiple instances" that you've accredited it. I was blocked a third time because you two pushed administrative action against an account that was used at the university I attend. Again, you two accused me of being twenty five different accounts, several of which weren't even located in my country and couldn't have possibly been me in an attempt to defend your severely unpopular edits. ±You attempted to post personal information that you believed to be my own from outside this website to "out" me, which is ground for an immediate block. You made my experience so miserable that I had to leave this site for months.Repeated harassment and posting personal information is certainly more egregious than socking on one instance (or two, if you were to count the second case that I was accused of and blocked for) as it is grounds for an immediate and possibly indefinite block. To state that these actions equate to you "not being a goody-two-shoes" suggests that you take them lightly, whoch is certainly problematic. I just want to take a second to point out that I was under no obligation to reach out to you two, and did so because I genuinely wanted to improve the relationship that this trio has. I can't imagine that any user would stand being falsly accused 25 times of sockpuppetry and then attempt to repair the situation by forgiving the accusors. It is even more farfetched that any user would then continue to attempt to reconcile good will after the passive-aggressive and misleading summation that the IndianBio posted above, but I am continuing to do so. I would also like to stress that I do not need your approval and am simply asking it as a courtesy so that we can avoid any kind of similar conflict in the future.

talk

) 17:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, MS.

CL here. I just reverted an edit by 602p that seems plain vandalism to me ... unless what we connect to a computer is called a "leopard", not a "keyboard" and what I have come to know as "smartphone" is actually a "pokédex"!

Still, I've been looking at his contrib log and this certain behavior looks weird to me. Perhaps, your experience in Wikipedia might tell you something that I don't know.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 16:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: Yep, that's vandalism. The rest of the account's edits look ok, though, which does make that edit stand out. The user looks familiar with wiki markup and with quite a few Wikipedia conventions, but we can't necessarily read too much into that. I'd do the same as you, I think - leave them a talk page warning and move on. I'd have probably made it a level one warning, though, seeing as this looks like the first vandalistic edit. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 21:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: He reads xkcd. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I don't know what to make of this xkcd piece. First, I don't know what's the comic strip talking about. Second, is there a cause-and-effect relationship between the two? If yes, which is the direction? i.e. did the vandalism occur first or was the comic piece came into being? Committing a

cum hoc, ergo propter hoc here is too dangerous here. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk

) 15:02, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure xkcd is published three times a week, and we're now on comic number 1426. That means comic number 1031 was written about 2.5 years ago. There might be a bit of variation depending on the actual publication rate, but xkcd definitely came first. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 22:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Stradivarius! Would you be interested in a Japanese translation collaboration? The Japanese version of the

I don't usually work on the Japanese Wikipedia, and I'm mostly concentrating on doing Lua-related work now. You're probably better off asking somebody over there - try posting at ja:Wikipedia:Help for Non-Japanese Speakers. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 22:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion! MsGingerHoneycutt (talk) 22:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Strad, did you get the email I posted to the Medcom mailing list about the chairmancy? I see it in the archives, but the lack of responses from other members makes me wonder if it went out. If you did get it, is the lack of response an indication that Medcom is, as Steve thought but we resisted, moribund? Just needs new blood? Something else? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

@TransporterMan: Yes, I got it. So, moribund rather than technical error. It might be time to overhaul MedCom, but for now another message to the list saying "Hey, this chairmancy stuff is important!" will probably doing the trick. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Done, many thanks. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice in mid-July. Have finally found the time to start making some requests for edits and have already had some made. Thanks. Easel14 (talk) 10:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

@Easel14: No worries. I'd advise you to also disclose your conflict of interest on your user page, and to ask before making any edits you think might be controversial. Also, see Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide for some Very Useful Pointers. And remember, my talk page is always open. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, how helpful did you find the 3RR report in making your decision? I thought it was irrelevant, but I'm always willing to be wrong...on occasion... :)

@

♪ talk ♪

22:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Totally understand...and you did great work there...as always!

Dreadstar ☥

23:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I saw you leave a comment on one of the pages I left a message on -- I'd appreciate a bit of guidance on how to decide if something merits an article or if it is better to merge. For the instance I am interested in, there's been a historical event where during a military operation to occupy a strip of land -- this lasted a couple weeks or so (I actually haven't checked the exact time frame yet). Anyway, there were acts of retribution. Unwarranted violence in exchange for unwarranted violence. Two localities are mentioned as places where such killings occurred. One historian scholar source was examined and found to lump all such killings into a single paragraph, mentioning the two localities (few days apart) with a joint number of casualties for the two. I believe the counter claim against merger, that the killings are written to have occurred a few days apart -- does not warrant two separate, yet pretty much identical articles. I'd appreciate your guidance on how Wikipedia deals with this matter. Regards. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 20:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi

notability of events, which seems to be relevant here. And finally, I recommend asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history to see what the editors there say. There are a lot of editors there who are seriously knowledgeable about military history and how to write articles on it, so they will be able to give you more specific guidance than I can here. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪}

01:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Seemed like very good suggestions -- but nobody cares(?) MarciulionisHOF (talk) 06:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

@MarciulionisHOF: I've taken a look at the merge discussion at Talk:Khan Yunis massacre#Merge, and it looks like there isn't any consensus to merge the pages at the moment. From looking at the articles, it looks like there is enough detail in the sources used to support them as stand-alone articles, so unless there is a consensus to merge them anyway, I'm afraid there's not much you can do. Try not to take it personally - it's not possible to have every discussion on Wikipedia go your way. You might also try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Palestine to see if there are other interested editors there, though. If you do so, it's polite to leave a note at the merge discussion to say where you've advertised it. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 07:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. A big problem with Israel related articles is that some of them were written, at least in part, with a certain political perspective in mind (some parts can be seen to have an agenda). I appreciate that you gave it a quick look. This helps me re-evaluate the terms in which I describe the problem to the community who might not be interested in reading the actual books involved (I wasn't interested so why would they?). I will re-establish the conversation in a manner that will break down the sources better -- this will, hopefully, help outsiders have an easier understanding why there's not enough "significant coverage in reliable sources" for two separate articles. Certainly, an article which uses for its main source, written as fact, one politically motivated cartoon-book that was done 50 years after the events -- see references section "Sacco", and 2 refs to in with Haaretz, is not a great way to write encyclopedic values about historical events. Regards, MarciulionisHOF (talk) 08:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I've now published a request for comment on the military forum (that leads here). I'm not sure if people will respond despite the more organized presentation. Perhaps I should publish this further. To be frank, I'd hate to publish in a Palestine/Israel page, where all the editors with a heavy political bias might impose silliness, such as support of a comic-book with stories and exaggerations collected 50 years after the events for reporting in a "neutral" voice of history. e.g. "The group was then ordered to walk, hands against the wall, whilst continuously shot at from fixed machine gun positions." (ref: comic-book). The entire section doesn't have a single disclaimer. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 12:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the military history area is the wrong venue (might be more about how military tactics/weaponry/etc. have evolved around the years more than about history in battles). Is there another history forum (hopefully, not one filled with politically motivated cheeseheads as I'd expect in the Arab/Israel/Palestine ones) to request public participation? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Holocaust researchers still collect oral reports from survivors of that period for many reasons, including shame, silence or that they were never asked. None of those stories are ipso facto 'true' but they enter into the archives as historical memories that, sifted, help increase our knowledge of many specific events not recorded by the Nazi archives. This is exactly what went on with Sacco's research: he set down the memories, and used a comic format to visualize them. I know of many WW2 veterens who only referred back to the horrors they witnessed very late in life. These reports are treated with respect and can be used with attribution. Palestinians must not invariably be held to hostage as not reportable because they are an 'unreliable' people, or whatever.Nishidani (talk) 16:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

You have a lot of nerve with some of your comparisons. 50,000+ video recordings for one of the most documented events of history (My grandmother gave a recorded testimony). You compare this with an Israel-disputed event with what documentation exactly? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 06:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Marciulionis, you asked me for my advice, and I'll give it again: I think a little bit of

WP:LETGO may work wonders here. Posting angry messages here (or elsewhere on Wikipedia, for that matter), however, is not going to help. The best way of fixing this situation is to accept that the consensus is against you and move on. As I said, this kind of thing happens on Wikipedia all the time, so you shouldn't take it personally. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪}

07:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

You are right about one thing. There's not much point in complaining. No one cared when it was clear as day so why would anyone care now. I'll just open that source for wider discussion. Any consensus obtained there, I will respect. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 12:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I want to thank you for efforts to direct me in the right path. I have opened at

The complexity involved here is that people jump to the wrong conclusions based on shallow understanding of the material and bad faith (no offense intended). I had linked to the discussion part, my diff above includes a link where I add the full explanation to my userpage. Thank you for your consideration. I am very much open to suggestions on improving this, in hopes that no one will assume I think one side or the other is evil. It is merely a longstanding dispute over self determination in the same territory. That people on both sides do terrible things cannot be disputed. That I have bad intentions and have called someone an antisemite, is wholly incorrect. Thanks in advance. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 06:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@

♪ talk ♪

07:41, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll try to keep it short, hopefully not too short.

In my one month of editing, a couple instances occurred when editors alleged my logic/intention is to portray Palestinians as antisemitic (one at the RSN).

First instance:

• Early in my edits, I opened a section asking about how to handle a contentious issue: Gaza support regarding attacks on Israeli civilians. Another editor (let's call him 'editor-A') jumped to conclusion (based on 'civilians' in the title) that I had intentions of smearing the Palestinians as antisemitic. editor-A followed that allegation with information I am fully aware of: that they have national aspirations and its just people supporting their "resistance" in conflict with an occupying power. I took offense since I was new here and did not expect such allegations. Taking offense was my mistake. In my complaints, I explained my offense at this allegation as being caricaturized. A typecast in offensive pro-Palestinian caricatures on Jews.[7] A crying-Jew caricature. My explanation was perceived in bad faith, as though the cartoon is antisemitic (it is not), and as if I was calling editor-A an antisemite. An admin, Bishonen, left a warning on my talk page for just that (we've been in prolonged discussion since then -- I still hope he will amend his warning as it is derived from misunderstanding and reflects badly on me).

Second instance:

• I've recently opened an RSN regarding a comic-book which was used in a 'neutral voice of history'. On the RSN, another editor (let's call him 'editor-B'), jumped to similar conclusions as editor-A (based on other content). editor-B followed (and still does) this allegation with assertions on his belief that I shouldn't edit Israel related articles because allegedly, I don't possess the necessary neutrality and detachment. I see it proper to add he was the only one stating clear support of the comic-book -- 5 others (myself included) disagreed.[8] As of now, only editor-A has joined him in clear support of the source.

Considering how quickly editors (and admins) can have a momentary shallow understanding* of text and situation and jump to bad faith conclusions, I thought this matter deserves a userpage clarification and asked everyone involved for their perception, advice, and suggestions. editor-B maintains his displeasure, but did help bring about one good point. Progress already. I hope further input, and a retraction by Bishonen will follow.

* editor-B didn't know the difference between 'Palestinian muqawama' and 'Palestinians'.

* admin Bishonen didn't know the type-cast example with the crying-Jew cartoon was not calling anyone antisemitic. Portraying someone as crying "antisemitism" in the Israeli-Palestinian context is still a misplaced assumption of bad faith.

Hope this wasn't too long, let me know if something needs further clarification. It appears I could use some changes to my link, but I wouldn't want to write anything that can be misunderstood as a personal attack on anyone. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 08:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@

Cynic's Guide to Wikipedia). Other than that, what result are you looking for? To get support for your merge request? To get a user blocked? To make a specific content change in an article? To have the RSN discussion closed? To get a useful result, I think we need to have a clear goal in mind. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪}

09:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@

Fram: Yes, I had worked out that you were editor B. Who is editor A, though? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪}

09:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I should reread what Marculionis wrote, either Nishidani or Bishonen, can't be bothered at the moment though :-)

Fram (talk

) 10:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Editor-A is Nishidani who responded to a section on a talk page with title "Unanimous support for attacking Israeli civilians - proposed new section". Johnuniq (talk) 10:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@

First update here. Probably far from perfect, but I think it makes progress. Let me know where else you I can improve it to reduce (and/or quickly diffuse) bad-faith allegations. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 19:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@

WP:GLUE. It's always worked for me. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪}

23:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the time and sincere efforts to help. The text is actually, not an apology but an explanation that offense here is poorly contrived. I've come to terms with the idea that editors have some poor habits when reading content posted by someone who knows what he's talking about regarding Palestinian militancy (I'm sure there's soe bad habits on the other side of the spectrum as well). Sadly, the conflict is far from clean (on both sides). As someone with a lot of knowledge and interest in this information, leaving it entirely then, promotes rejecting any of the "real" (read: 'not very nice') source based content on basis of editorial bias, that presenting e.g. Mahmoud Abbas's claiming Israel is committing genocide, has intentions to smear the Palestinians/Israelis/Arabs/Muslis/etc. I will review your glue link and will try to expand into other subjects I find interest in. I'll have to think long and hard about the suggestion to just remove it rather than rephrase it. I recall editor-B (if I' not mistaken) said something similar, though he's shown bad faith throughout our encounters. Best, MarciulionisHOF (talk) 08:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey, sorry to bother you with this, but you're the most recent editor of {{Subject bar}} and template talk pages are often undersubscribed. I was looking at Radium in the mobile view and I noticed that the subject bar template doesn't render. It looks like the mobile CSS suppresses navboxes and because the subject bar declares itself to be a navbox, it won't show up. That sort of sucks for pages which use it in the "see also" section, because you get an empty section on mobile. To be clear I don't think this is your fault or that your change had anything to do with this (maybe it did, I didn't look :) ). I just figured I'd give someone a heads up who might know/care about it. Thanks. Protonk (talk) 14:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

@

WP:VPT to start with, until the devs and the community can work out a way to move forward on it. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪}

15:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I think you're right that the place to start is VPT and the best (although still hard) way forward is making navboxes more mobile friendly. I'll try and see how best to broach that and which solutions will be associated with the least pain. If I can think of something that might work I'll spin up a discussion on VPT. Have a good weekend! Protonk (talk) 17:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello,sir,I appreciate your undo.Maybe,this might be my immaturity.I was just trying to ask for page protection.I also ask you for improvement of the article.How about uploading some photos.Would you like do it by yourself?While uploading them,also include the photo related with sessya in

@

help desk. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪}

11:12, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Stradivarius; The nice graphs by EngineeringGuy on Wikipedia look like they could be improved with your expertise. Could you look at this diff[9]. The fix might be simple to save on the graphic visual space on the Wikipedia page, though I don't know how to do it. Maybe you'll have a good idea. Cheers. FelixRosch (talk) 20:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Mr. Stradivarius

How do you do?

It appears we have a full-scale copyvio problem in

The problem is that the source from which the copyright violation has occurred is not on the web, but the documentation pages of MS-DOS and PC-DOS, so I can't use {{Db-g12}}. I've taken screenshots of these pages on MS-DOS 6.22 and made them available for your perusal: [10]

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 05:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: I've looked at the files, and I agree that those are clear copyright violations. I've reverted back to the latest semi-clean version, removed the obvious copyvio from that, and restored all the non-copyrighted content that I could. I revdelled the rest, although some early revisions still remain. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

You found a clean revision? That's pretty impressive! You must've read hundreds of revisions.

I wondering if I can have your advice too: What think is best to do with the remaining of the article? Clean, sweep and improve, or nominate in AfD for

WP:NOTMANUAL

violation?

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 15:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: I'd lean towards clean, sweep and improve, although there might be a case for deletion. If you think it should be deleted it would be better to nominate it, so that you don't waste a lot of effort improving it only to have it deleted later. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 22:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

That's exactly the concern. Maybe I should consult someone who is both an admin and is knowledgeable about the computing landscape. Trouble is: I don't know such a person. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: In that case, just nominate it, and note your concerns in the nomination statement. It's not the end of the world if something goes to AfD and doesn't get deleted, and if you explain your reasons for nominating it clearly, then people aren't likely to hold it against you. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 03:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Stradivarius, I see that you removed alot of copyrighted stuff from the List of DOS commands article. Although this leaves the article in a horrible state right now, it was definitely necessary - thanks for that. However, I'm somewhat unhappy with the edit summary you left with your 2014-09-10T11:12:29 edit indicating that several editors had copied and pasted docs directly. I am monitoring the article for quite some while and I'm quite sure that the only editor who added copyrighted material was User:Asmpgmr back in mid 2002. The text he added was directly copied from the built-in help of IBM PC DOS. While this text can be found in several books and hundreds of places online and PC DOS is an abandoned product, this does not make it free to use for everyone, of course. Back then I asked him to stop doing this several times but he said he would have been the lead developer of PC DOS 7 (which I have verified to be true) and that it would be okay for him to use it, so I gave up on this always hoping someone with enough time at hands would come along rewriting it.

Anyway, the reason I am approaching you is because as it stands right now, even edits before the 2002-07-04 cannot be viewed any more, although they are not affected by Asmpgmr's edits. Perhaps you can do something about it by narrowing down the removed edits to those actually affected. And perhaps you could even improve your edit summary so that it no longer blames a whole group of editors who have contributed to this article over the many years of its existance for what a single editor did. Thanks for your consideration. Greetings, --Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

@Matthiaspaul: Unfortunately, my edit summary is accurate. While most of the copy-pasted docs were added by Asmpgmr, there were also other copy-pasted docs added much earlier by other editors. The first was xcopy, added by an IP in this edit (admin-only link, although the edit summary is pretty clear). That was later removed, but by the time it had gone the format command had also been copy-pasted from the docs, so there wasn't a clean revision in between. I've saved all the clean revisions I could find, but unfortunately they were only at the very start of the edit history, before 2006. I also saved all the non-copyrighted text from the revision before Asmpgmr, but there may still be some useful content that was added and then removed during the revisions I've deleted. If there are any revisions you would like to see, I'll be happy to email the text to you. Also, if Asmpgmr really does own the copyright to the docs, then that may mean that we can use them. I think we would need to verify this with Microsoft through OTRS, however. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 03:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Stradivarius. Even though I was monitoring the article for quite some while didn't realize the even older copyvios. Thanks for the explanations. While I don't have the time to work on the article right now, I probably will at a later stage. Therefore, it would be great if you could send me the contents of the article immediately before the removal of copyvios (2014-09-10) to see if some more stuff would be salvagable. In addition to this, I would also appreciate if you could tell me what was added by User:Ggb667 in his 2014-05-08T19:33:11‎ edit (as he left a somewhat cryptic message on my talk page and I can't help him without knowing what he added originally). Thanks alot and greetings, --Matthiaspaul (talk) 17:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

@Matthiaspaul: Ok, I've sent you both of those by email. Let me know if you didn't get them, and let me know if there's anything else you want me to send you. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

I have been involved/helped a user with developing tables (mainly league) but also group stage tables, when I now came across your module Module:League table. I looked to see where it was used and saw it was never used (created about a year ago), but it was linked to from an old discussion at your talkpage archieve and at Village Pump archive and then I remembered you came with idea of LUA table. That never happened (at least I thought so) and an other solution with switches was implemented instead to only display a part of a table for club season articles.

For some time ago after several league table discussions at football project an other user @CRwikiCA: started creating an other LUA module at Module:Football table (now moved to Module:Sports table). It has been a lot of work and we have taken it to the football project on several occasions for consensus regarding layout and such. Now it is currently rated alpha and tested at some articles before taking it to footy for consensus to put into wider use.

Thought I should inform you since you seem to have good knowledge in LUA and has also started to implement a table-module. Perhaps the pages should be merged or something? And with your knowledge of LUA feel free to look at the code and see how it looks.

Regards, QED237 (talk) 21:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Equafy I added external references as well as links. Can we remove the notability tag

Sslavov (talk) 19:46, 11 October 2014 (UTC)Sslavov

@

articles for creation. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪}

03:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I think I need a bit of help with Janagewen in editor retention capacity. He has been obsessing with

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 03:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: If you're getting fatigued, try emptying out your watchlist. It's amazing how not being distracted by a thousand watchlist notices every day can help you to focus on what's really important. It's ok to leave the monitoring of articles to the recent changes patrollers - they generally do a pretty good job. As for Janagewen, I'll have a look at the situation and see what I think. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 03:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Already done that.The fatigue isn't caused by Wikipedia. I'm already down to a handful of edits per day and regret that I am not a principle editor in Windows 10 article. (I was a principle editor in Windows 8 series of articles.) Plus, I expected to be able to learn Lua and handle the phase two of hatnote templates myself. Hasn't happened yet. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 05:17, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that there was a phase two of hatnote-template conversion. :) What did you have in mind? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I remember having said "But I don't suggest tackling the entire Category:Hatnote templates all at once. For the start, {{Main}}, {{See also}}, {{Further}} and {{Details}} would do admirably." Well, I was planning to tackle that category. But whatever. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

After looking, I think your message on Janagewen's talk page should be enough for now. It might just be enough to sort the problem out. If not, we will be better able to think of dispute resolution steps etc. after Janagewen replies or next edits the template. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:02, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, give it 24 hours. I am having two notifications which I am trying hard not to peek at. I suspect it has happened. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 05:17, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: Janagewen has replied on their talk page now, and it looks promising to me. I think it should work out fine if you just talk through it with them, but let me know if you think any further intervention is needed. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

And Fleet Command has engaged, leading to the exchange of some juicy profanity! I'd say we're having a WP:SHARK BITE instead of just WP:BITE. Not that I entirely feel sorry for either. I am pulling out of that discussion. Date styles are not worth it. Thanks for your cooperation.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 01:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

P.S. You know, if I were an admin, I'd have revdel both the contribution containing the profanity and the name of the contributor before FC gets to log in, see it and go all

WP:MASTADON. A very effective prevention... Codename Lisa (talk

) 01:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed the boat on that one. Janagewen has now reported themselves on

WP:AN3, so I'll let the patrolling admin puzzle that one out, I think. From their latest posts it looks like we might have lost them, but I'll keep monitoring and leave a message if it looks as though it will be useful. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪}

11:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

@Protonk: That's actually a relatively simple template, so converting it to Lua might not save as much time as you think. Also, doing it properly would involve updating Module:PageLinks and all the related templates like Template:Ln and Template:La, and might take a while. You might save some processing time by taking out all those span tags, though - the MediaWiki software needs to validate all of them, which will take a while if there are 500 transclusions of the template on a page, and most users won't notice the difference as you have to specifically style those links in your personal CSS page to see any effect. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 01:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Ye gods that is a lot of span tags. I'll ask around to see why they were added in the first place. Protonk (talk) 14:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

@

WP:GAN in about three seconds, compared to the current template's six seconds. (If both these figures seem generally fast to you, it's because I have HHVM switched on in my beta features.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪}

22:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I've got HHVM turned on as well (It is better than sliced bread) and 6 seconds for the current page is about what I'm seeing. Protonk (talk) 22:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• Mr. Stradivarius, I've been thinking about ways to condense that... I've decided that I'm just going to make a userscript and by doing so, I believe half of the spans will go away. I'll just have the script replace the whole word with the abbr. I'll work something up in the sandbox and send you an edit request. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 23:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Mr.S. Please see this request at VPT. URLs beginning with http://nih.gov/... are being accepted with no CAPTCHA but the same thing without the http: is still being flagged. Since you are the last person to edit Mediawiki:Captcha-addurl-whitelist maybe you have an idea. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I've replied over at VPT. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello.

Seeing as you have CheckUser rights, I'd like to know if you'd do something for me.

Vjmlhds (talk) 00:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: I don't have CheckUser rights. You probably want one of the users listed here. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@

WP:CHK, On some Wikimedia projects, an editor's IP addresses may be checked upon his or her request, typically to prove innocence against a sockpuppet allegation. Such checks are not allowed on the English Wikipedia and such requests will not be granted. Jackmcbarn (talk

) 02:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey there, I created a San Jose Earthquakes taskforce for Wikiproject football and submitted an edit request for its template page. However after a few days I still haven't had anyone add in the edit I proposed which has put a halt to any taskforce activity. I noticed that you were one of the last people to edit the template, and so I thought I may ask if you could add in our taskforce request to the banner. I'm a bit new to taskforces and locked template edits, so if I should direct this question elsewhere please let me know.

Thank you very much.

--Christiangamer7 (talk) 04:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

@Christiangamer7: Done. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

There's a requested move at

Sorry for the late reply. I'm busy writing Module:Article history at the moment, but I might have a look later on. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• Virtual Rendezvous (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am the original author of the 2007 article on Virtual Rendezvous that was deleted in late 2012.

I tried reaching Huntley or any other wikipedia people about the speedy deletion within a month of when I left the Net.

I gave a public talk on the until then private project in NYC 3/2009 at DCIA.info that talk is archived as referenced in the footnotes. The article was not notable in 2007 since Virtual Rendezvous had only private influence until 2009, when it went more public, but I have been off the Net caring for my mother 24/7 the past two years and thus could not participate in the deletion discussion. I can give about 100 notable people who have worked on the project 1993-2009. Let me know how is best to proceed, I am unfamiliar with new wikipedia procedures. VirtualRendezvous at Gmail reaches me --clp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.211.41.249 (talk) 17:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. First you should read the

sourcing guidelines and are completely independent of Virtual Rendezvous, we can consider reinstating the article, or you can write a new one (perhaps at Draft:Virtual Rendezvous). Would you like me to email you the text of the deleted article? It's probably easiest to do this if you make yourself an account, as then you can keep your email address private. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪}

01:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I reported a bug on Module talk:AutomaticArchiveNavigator - any chance you might respond to it?--Oneiros (talk) 23:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello again: Is it possible to use the templates that call modules to reassign parameters before passing them onto the modules – i.e. if, for example, {{hlist}} was used as {{hlist |itemstyle=(styling) |item1 |item2 |etc}}, it would pass the itemstyle to Module:List as item_style..? Regards, Sardanaphalus (talk) 13:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

@Sardanaphalus: If you call the parameter "itemstyle" it will always be passed to the module as "itemstyle". But once it's inside the module you can assign that value to different variables or tables etc. as you see fit. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Understood. If, though, adding/amending variables within the module is not desired, is the above possible instead..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 10:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

You could do that, but it's really inefficient. Better to change it in the module itself. Although in the case of Module:List, I don't think that an extra parameter is needed for this purpose. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I guess I'm still noticing the difference between "liststyle" etc in the Navbox/Sidebar/etc templates and "list_style" etc in {{hlist}} etc. Sardanaphalus (talk) 09:20, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

For doing tricky CSS fixing in {{Infobox}}, you deserve some pie! —hike395 (talk) 04:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much! (nom) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

i can see you have never taught in a japanese university.... the grading system is s (90 and above) a (80-89) b (70-79) c (60-69) d (under 60- failure)

there are other classifications, e not enough information to give a grade and never came to class (i need to check my grade sheets later to tell you exactly what is written)...

also, there are two ways I have experienced to give grades. one is a number, so the actual average is registered and the other is entering the letter grade, so regardless of an 89 or 80 point average, both students receive the same grade.

my students recently told me no student fails in grade school (is held back a grade) or can skip a grade (if tested superior).... (which is why I was researching this point)....

there are some universities giving a grade by academic year and not by semester.

if you have any questions, feel free to ask. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.254.74.143 (talk) 13:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. What article is this about? I'm afraid to say that you have completely lost me here. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:54, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Hey Strad, I hate to bother you, but in your opinion, was my behavior at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jackmcbarn poor? Because fellow editors have accused me of "badgering" and "lambasting". Today I expressed my commitment to stop arguing completely at RfA. I feel like others do the same as me, but don't get the accusations I do. I just feel discouraged. I don't want to leave WP, but I just feel like everywhere there are people who misunderstand (and after the discussion, possibly despise) me for arguing. Is there anything wrong with just arguing? Anything I should change about what I say? Thanks, --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 21:22, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@AmaryllisGardener: I can't say that I blame you for having strong opinions about that RfA. The calls for Jackmcbarn to connect his account to all his past IP addresses were particularly concerning, in my opinion. As for "badgering", what seems like badgering to one person can seem like reasoned debate to the next person. You're not wrong to express your opinions at RfA - in fact it's an important part of the RfA process to discuss reasons for supporting and opposing, rather than it just being a straight vote. Just bear in mind that some editors' tolerance for replying to the opposes can be lower than others next time, and you'll be fine. And if editing is causing you stress, taking a short wikibreak works well. Remember that Wikipedia can always wait. Hope this helps. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 23:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Strad. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 23:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)