User talk:Rd232/archive6

Acknowledgement

I thought it was very gracious of you to apologize to Dab for the misunderstanding that led to the RFC. Abecedare (talk) 09:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

FYI (see 4th sentence). It's unfortunate that somethings on wikipedia are so predictable. Abecedare (talk) 16:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Well perhaps you could point out the agreed summary and ask him to strike the remark. Rd232 ^talk 16:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The results of any such effort are even easier to predict! :-) (see the Evidence page for some background) Abecedare (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:New unreviewed article

Template:New unreviewed article has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. GW… 17:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The result of the discussion was keep per WP:SNOW. Debresser (talk) 17:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

MediaWiki messages

Hi Rd232. Sorry to disturb you while you are on wikibreak, but I think this is a special interest area of yours:

We need a single place to announce discussions about MediaWiki messages, since the "MediaWiki talk:" pages are not watched much. If you are interested in this, see Wikipedia talk:MediaWiki#MediaWiki messages.

--David Göthberg (talk) 00:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikibreak enforcer

Rd232, please could you remove the statement about wikibreak enforcement from your talk page. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 22:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Added a clarifying footnote. Rd232 ^talk 11:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

But then if you do not intend to be on wikibreak ("enforced" or otherwise), why leave the notice up on your page at all? Or if you do intend to be on wikibreak, why are you still logged on and posting? This is the cognitive dissonance the wikibreak notice creates. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 17:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

With wikibreak notice, I've been trying to limit myself to open issues. Without, I might be tempted to involve myself in new things. I had a post on this page which clarified things, but I archived it when I thought I was done. Rd232 ^talk 16:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that moving my comment here out of context was the greatest idea. But I'm glad to see that your wikibreak and dab's are only temporary. Happy editing. Mathsci (talk) 20:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see any context. The wikibreak has nothing to do with the RFC. Like dab's, it's about RL. Rd232 ^talk 16:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Requested move (please comment)

Hey Rd232, I know that you are on Wikibreak kinda sorta, but I know that you have been interested in the Honduras articles, and I would appreciate your comment here: Talk:Chronology_of_events_of_the_2009_Honduran_coup_d'état#Requested_move No consensus was reached this last week, and it was relisted. I hope that you can kind of understand the logic of what I was saying there, even if you don't agree with the move. Thanks a lot and I hope that RL is going well for you! Moogwrench (talk) 12:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

OK. Rd232 ^talk 18:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Question regarding Wikipedia:Requests for comment/userfication

Hey there. I was wondering if there had been any follow up on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/userfication. I was thinking that if someone hasn't already, we should probably go ahead with the implementation. Cheers, NW (Talk) 20:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I left a WP:AN request (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive204#Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment.2Fuserfication) but possibly because it was slightly premature it was archived without any action. Perhaps you could make another request. Thanks, Rd232 ^talk 21:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

RfC at 2009 Honduran coup d'état regarding mention of the constitutional crisis in the lede

Hey Rd232, sorry to bother you again on your wikibreak, but since there has been a lot of revert activity regarding this issue, I thought you might like to opine. I'd like your opinion, and that of other editors that have been interested in the Honduran articles, at Talk:2009_Honduran_coup_d'état#RfC:_Do_the_sources_support_the_mention_of_coup_as_part_of_the_constitutional_crisis_in_the_lede_of_this_article.3F. Thanks! Moogwrench (talk) 21:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Gilad Atzmon

The thread at AN/I was archived today. Any suggestions? Should I move it back to the main board? It's disappointing that you are the only person who commented. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Worth a try. If that doesn't produce any results, maybe an WP:RFC/U would help. Rd232 ^talk 22:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Why not just look at the politics section and make your own edits? The failure of others to get involved was part of the problem. Again see where we DID get consensus at the post-protection Draft - (the Talk page). Obviously I always get reverted and can't be bothered to try to edit the article any more, maybe you all will have better luck. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

If you recall, a while back I made quite a lot of effort, with limited success. I don't have time to repeat that, and I'm not sure I'd spend my wikitime on that if I did. Rd232 ^talk 09:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I do remember. It was much worse then because of User:Malcolm Schosha who was much worse than Drsmoo and is now "retired" after repeated blocks for becoming increasingly obnoxious on other articles. I am quite willing (and really have little choice for now since my edits always reverted) to step back if others DO get involved. If it was just you and Malik vs. Drsmoo I think things would work out much easier. Note he seems to be making the news again and I was going to put up some new notable WP:RS info on the talk page only for now, just to give others something to work with. (I have him on google alerts.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Fynire again

Fynire is continuing to be disruptive and flout Wikipedia policies, including adding copyright violations which he was previously blocked for. Despite being warned and reverted many times for adding unsourced material, he made this edit which even includes unsourced quotes attributed to a living person which is a big no-no. Then after having that edit reverted, he adds it back with a source and it turns out to be a copy and paste copyright violation. Can anything be done about this permanently disruptive editor please? O Fenian (talk) 19:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't want to get drawn into this again whilst I'm on a 99% wikibreak. Take it to ANI or some other WP:DR venue. cheers, Rd232 ^talk 20:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

MediaWiki developer memo

I left a message at Wikipedia talk:MediaWiki/DeveloperMemo#Some comments that probably interests you.

--David Göthberg (talk) 11:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

deleting legit pages

I'm trying to figure out what the actual criteria for letting a page stay is. Does something need to hit the front page of USA today to be important enough for this site? Isn't the coolest thing about a encyclopedia that you can find stuff out that you wouldn't normally find on the front page of a newspaper??? No wonder people hate this site so much. I can list 100s of pages that are equally as "unimportant" as the ones that I've seen you delete and I'm wondering why certain ones get deleted and others don't. Even in a project like this censorship is alive and well. Fly46 (talk) 01:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

You're vastly more likely to get a useful response from me if you tell me what you're talking about. But, OK, since you only have 1 deleted article in your contributions, it's clearly Ink Monkey Mag you're talking about. This was deleted per WP:PROD, i.e. a proposed deletion not contested for 7 days. You can ask user:Hysteria18 why they thought it didn't meet GNGs. You can also ask any admin to restore the page - they should do so on request for deletions made through this process. If you want me to, I can do it, but I'm on a sortof-wikibreak so you may not get an immediate response. Rd232 ^talk 13:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you're on all kinds of wikibreak. Congratulations on your uneventful return back. ;) Throwaway85 (talk) 02:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

unreferenced BLP bot

Hey there

I wanted your input on a bot that you requested (and i scripted)

see discussion here Tim1357 (talk) 17:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Great, but there were a number of rulesets discussed, notably not bothering to notify people who've not logged in for a while, and notifying everyone active who's made non-minor edits. As I understand it the bot currently is set to notify only one person per article, which doesn't make sense to me, especially without a recent-activity check. Rd232 ^talk 18:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rd232. I think we are moving in the direction of starting with article creators and postponing messaging major contributors. Would you like to join in the discussion on the Bot requests page? - Pointillist (talk) 13:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for jumping in so promptly - Pointillist (talk) 16:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Quick follow up (thanks for RFC etc info in close)

Note from the Polanski WP:TLDR team extraordinaire. (I'm sure you're desperate to know this, but ... :-)

• I was going to take the dual edit war (over 3RR) to AN3 when I saw this had been started, said to self, why this here?
• Please excuse the foolishness of the uninformed ... it is not yet notched in my brain where different problems go. OR if one can stop them when they go to the wrong place ...
• I pondered briefly reverting this one, since I knew it was wrong set of facts for here. I emailed initiator to shift to AN3 —he replied "didn't want to forum shop."
• Oh, well, I stayed away until I was mentioned, and you know how things go. lol

Bottom line: Please excuse so much real estate of ANI consumed by this. A learning experience. (sigh, so sleepy) Thank you for putting "learning experience" out of its misery... and clearly highlighting in your resolve what should be obvious, but instead something to be learned. Now to figure out how to do that. Happy holidays. (no reply necessary) Proofreader77 (talk) 16:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy holidays, and a quick question:

What's the proper course of action in dealing with a user who spams vandalism on a page, in this case [1], and then leaves it alone? The edit has been reverted, but I was wondering if further sanctions are necessary, or if there's a template I should be putting on their talk page. Thanks, and have a great Holiday Season. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

If it's a single edit that's very recent (minutes), you should template, choosing from the big list at WP:UTM, to reduce the likelihood of them doing it again. (Don't automatically use the Vandalism series - Edit Test is nicer, especially if it's a first mucking about.) If the edit's a bit older, it doesn't matter too much. Happy holidays. Rd232 ^talk 11:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree and split the page.

Wikipedia talk:User access levels/RFC on autoconfirmed status required to create an article is now a separate page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you kidding?

What the heck do you mean by this?[2] Surely you know that is an out-of-process closure, without any consensus for any WP:SNOW. "Fork" is utterly not the issue, but all the same I will soon recreate without any of the former content. This kind of thing is rather ridiculous, and brings some disrepute on the project. - Wikidemon (talk) 11:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, I'll let DR take its course before proposing new content. - Wikidemon (talk) 11:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:SNOW wasn't mentioned, for obvious reasons. If you want to spin off an article, follow WP:SUMMARY, and avoid WP:Content forking as you did. (That the fork had a title previously rejected put the icing on the fork.) Next time, discuss what you're going to do first on the relevant talk page, and if necessary draft in your own userspace. That's partly why I userfied the fork - you may be able to reuse some of it for an article which is an appropriate spin-off, rather than an inappropriate fork. Rd232 ^talk 12:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion Review

I think your closure of Climategate scandal was premature and inappropriate -- as such I listed it under deletion review. jhe_iv (talk) 11:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Good call, I think. The aftermath isn't pretty, but I think things could have become very ugly indeed if this fork had not been quickly squashed. --TS 14:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It was messy and only going to get worse. The concerns voiced by some shouldn't be ignored, but wouldn't justify a fork; and discussing them endlessly in an AFD of a fork is in no-one's interests. Rd232 ^talk 14:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs), and possibly others, disagree. It appears more people agree with you than disagree with you. I predict the DRV will end with your actions upheld, but it will be far from unanimous. As I said on the DRV, there are 3 reasons to close a good faith AFD early: SNOW, SPEEDY, and IAR. IAR must always be taken with great deliberation and is usually best avoided if it will cause controversy and drama, even if it is being used to avoid controversy and drama. I assume you deliberated hard before acting. I hope that in a similar situation in the future, you will again deliberate hard and will consider the drama this use of IAR caused vs. what it potentially avoided. After all, we hired you for your overall good judgment. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Good call. The creation of the fork was inexcusable, the POV aspects were irrefutable and the disruption it would have produced was worth avoiding. It would certainly have been targeted by external parties - there were already indications that a wave of sockpuppetry, ranting IPs and meatpuppetry was coming. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm wondering if you might be amenable to the solution I proposed here (particularly the last half of the comment), even though I know you don't see a relisting as advisable. I'm okay with IAR actions, and I do agree about the problems inherent with the article in question (at least based on what I've read in the DRV and AfD), but when IAR actions lack consensus I think it's best to undo them. It seems clear to me that too many have a problem with the early close (not so much the close itself). Continuing to run the DRV just draws out the issue, whereas if we restart the AfD while keeping the article in userspace for now we'll end up with a less controversial close (though quite likely one similar to yours) and keep the content out of article space in the meantime, which was I think for you the main point of closing early in the first place. The next few days might also result in a re-written split-off article that does not have the serious problems of the original, in which case the DRV would certainly be a waste of time. Anyhow this is obviously just a suggestion and you're free to ignore it, but I'm generally interested in ways to short circuit drama and this seems like one possible solution. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I assume both of you (BTP and RD2) are watching my talk page, but just in case, I've proposed something similar there except that we leave the AfD closed as "delete / userfy" and wait to have a renewed AfD until such point if any that I am ready to move an improved article back to main space and someone sees fit to again consider deletion. Let me know what you think. Regards, - Wikidemon (talk) 03:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I've replied on your talk page, and note here that done, right, as you suggest on your talk page, the risk of a new AFD should be low. Rd232 ^talk 13:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that you are being über-optimistic. The fact that the very word "Climategate" is now once again near-absent in the English Wikipedia is quite telling. Dimawik (talk) 21:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

That's a matter for current discussion at the CRU incident page: WP:Consensus / WP:DR. And if "Climategate" isn't accepted in the title by the time Wikidemon finishes his draft, he would be wise to avoid using it initially in his new page (I think he said that), and then having a rename discussion if anyone wants. That would reduce the risk of another AFD, and reduce its complexity if it does happen. (Which it shouldn't, with sufficient input into the draft.) Rd232 ^talk 15:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I did not mean the title of the article; the word itself seems to be disappearing from the English Wikipedia. Note how it is slowly moving down in the lead of the email controversy article. Dimawik (talk) 05:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a content issue, and I'm not interested in editing the topic. Discuss at the talk page, use WP:DR if necessary. Rd232 ^talk 05:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

This was a comment, not a complaint. Sorry for bugging you, and happy New Year! Dimawik (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Rd232! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current 35 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Paweł Piskorski - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 20:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Salt

It is very hard to salt user space because the page titles don't matter. --BozMo talk 17:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

...it was a joke, to go with the "snow close". Because of the page's topic. Rd232 ^talk 17:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah. You must be German then? ;) --BozMo talk 22:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

? Why do you say that? I don't get it. Rd232 ^talk 23:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

When I worked for a multinational (for 15 years) I had people of sixty nationalities working for me. An interesting feature of both of the Germans and Dutch was that each said the other had no sense of humour. Of course both did but neither appreciated/understood the other. Personally I found Dutch humour easier to understand but the slightly whimsical humour of Germans I never particularly got. These days I work for a German/Austrian charity. The humour thing is still an issue: they are baffled or insulted by British humour but their own I don't get. Anyway why I said it was also a joke. --BozMo talk 07:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

ok. German/British humour clash is a well-known issue (the British much more language-based); German/Dutch less so. I'm just a bit surprised - nobody's ever suggested to me I might have some German humour! :) Rd232 ^talk 09:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, may be just me. --BozMo talk 10:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Nicht unbedingt. Rd232 ^talk 10:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Venezuelan articles

I have been "sort of" following some of the discussion between you and Voui on Elias Cardenas and Human Rights in Venezuela. While I have no dispute with the individual remarks that you have made, I do sympathize with an editor who is trying to publish something resembling the truth and has nothing to show for it, other than Venezuela is a showplace for Human Rights. This reflects nothing in any publication outside of Venezuelan government controlled media. So right now, we have, on a count of one to ten, with one being the least truthful 1- Venezuelan government media & Cuban government media; 3 - Wikipedia; and 8 or 9 - Everybody else in the world. Not sure if the truth will ever be allowed here. On the few political articles where civility prevailed, I have helped editors with contrary opinions in framing their arguments, knowing that I would similarly be helped in framing mine. This is clearly not the case here.

How and when will truth prevail? Wikipedia looks silly here. Any serious researcher cannot use Wikipedia in understanding Venezuela at all. If it is their first article, it is likely to be their last. Student7 (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Er, you haven't addressed either a question or a request to me, so I'm unsure how to respond. (And you meant Eligio Cedeno, not Elias Cardenas, whoever that is.) In general, many of the Venezuela articles are poor or don't exist at all (like much non-US / European), and a large effort to improve that using good sources would reduce the problems associated with political disagreements. You want to do that? Be my guest. You haven't responded to my suggestion yesterday, at Talk:Human_rights_in_Venezuela#Murders_in_Caracas, about Crime in Venezuela. In general, many of the problems I've seen, for some reason particularly on Venezuelan topics but it's a general Wikipedia problem, stem from many editors' inability to properly distinguish an encyclopedia from a newspaper; so everything becomes about specific Things That Happened Recently Which Must Be Mentioned, instead of proper encyclopedic overviews using secondary sources. Rd232 ^talk 20:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Wrong Interpretation

I think you have misunderstood what i said on my talk page. It was not directed at you and was not directed at the article. I just realised i was not cut out for new page patroling, something i had never done before so it was a learning curve. In regards to the archiving i by no means attempted to hide the fact that i had some speedy deletes declined infact its listed in the edit summary that i removed them, just moved them into archive for asthetic purposes. In hind sight they could very well have been left there. In regards to that article i only tagged it as it didnt have any references (other than the obituary) i completely forgot to check the "what links here" (it didnt even cross my mind) however if in future i brave the waters of new pages again i sure will check. Cheers ZooPro 14:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

ok, fair enough, I didn't mean that you were "hiding" anything as such; it's just constant archiving is not so helpful for communication. And NPP is a learning curve like anything else; just take it slow and look for feedback. And always check "what links here"; I try to check the creator's contributions as well, if it's a problem page - it can turn up other issues. Rd232 ^talk 14:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

New ANI created.

I believe I should give you a heads-up on this ANI regarding Proofreader77 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Proofreader77_Established_record_of_continuous_unrelenting_Disruptive_Editing

--Tombaker321 (talk) 09:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

your unconstructive removal of factual sourced content

you can keep trying to remove worthwhile, valid, factual, and sourced content from the guardian page all you like but i will not let you. sorry if that bothers you. if it is "not a particularly important or interesting thing to discuss at length" as you have written, why dont you just leave the page alone and stop interfering with the content? Perry mason (talk) 08:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

For your tone: WP:MASTODON. For the substantive issues: Talk:Guardian. For the edit warring: note that edit warring doesn't require breach of WP:3RR. Rd232 ^talk 09:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

for you: WP:AGF. Perry mason (talk) 09:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Reverting repeatedly against a talkpage consensus without even engaging with the discussion there is textbook edit-warring. Rd232 ^talk 09:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

stop trying to blame me, ive added comments on the talk page, my page, and this page. all you are doing is constantly interfering with the page and making various attacks on me (you STILL need to AGF). if you dont think it us "not a particularly important or interesting thing to discuss at length", leave the page alone. Perry mason (talk) 09:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

My bad, I gave you the wrong talk page link, and you didn't spot it. Obviously it would be Talk:The Guardian. Please see the existing discussion there. Rd232 ^talk 09:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh bravo!

LOL! Best rewrite to an essay nutshell summary evar! - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

:) thanks. Rd232 ^talk 12:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Daybreakers

Sorry for being to rough here, the page has been through so much in the last couple of days, it's my instinct to revert additions of external links Could you consider working the review into the "Critical reception" section? Thanks ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 14:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but I can't do everything and I choose not to do that! I left a note on the talk page in case someone else wants to do it. Rd232 ^talk 23:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

• gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

• ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Bernie Miklasz

As per this diff [3], Sdiver68 is claiming you told him his most recent addition of a controversy section to this BLP was okayed by you [4]. I've been trying to explain to this user for several days what a "controversy" actually is, and what establishes notability. He's trying to add a controversy section based on several opinions the sports writer has given over the years. He's using sources that show what the opinions were, but not that they were controversial or notable in the long term. I've got a discussion going on the talk page, if you get a chance to weigh in there, I'd greatly appreciate an opinion. Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 02:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to say anything on the content, but I've left a note. Rd232 ^talk 09:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion Review

I beleive your deletion of the page Obsession (band) was inappropriate. The page had been deleted only about a week ago, I put it under Deletion review and the Editing protection was removed, and the page reposted. See deletion review page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Obsession_.28band.29 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbruno2 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC) All concerns in the previous discussions of the page had been changed to meet all concerns. Advertising concerns were addressed and removed, all copyright concerns were changed (even though everything referenced was from my OWN articles from theobsession.net) This page should be reinstated. There is no reason the page should not be up. This is a pretty major band with songs on national movie soundtrack and spawned a world renowned vocalist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbruno2 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It's for the Deletion Review (DRV) to decide whether it should exist - until then, it should not be created. To assist the DRV I've userfied the page to User:Jbruno2/Obsession (band). Rd232 ^talk 17:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Neil Gaiman

Rd232, please be aware that I believe Homolka (on the NG talk page) is a sockpuppet of a banned user. See WP:AN/I#Banned user returns?. You may wish to post a link to this on the NG talk page to let other editors know. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Aafia

No worries, I guessed it wasn't intentional :) Fragma08 (talk) 19:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herrmann Ultrasonics, Inc.

At 09:34, 19 January 2010 you created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herrmann Ultrasonics, Inc., but you did not add an AfD message to the article itself. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

thanks; not sure what happened there - I used WP:Twinkle. Rd232 ^talk 21:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• I found some references for the parent company at http://www.accessmylibrary.com/search/?q=%22Herrmann+Ultraschalltechnik%22 - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Misuse of tools

Editing through protection because you don't like the version that was protected is not acceptable in any way. You need to revert yourself at this point, since what you did is wholly unacceptable. UnitAnode 02:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I stated my case on the talk page (and in the edit summary). I have no view on whether one version is better than the other - merely that one is the long-term stable one. You may note my position on unreferenced BLPs from my proposal at WT:PROD (Proposed Incubation). Rd232 ^talk 02:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

And I've got to laugh that you request this after endorsing mass deletion without community endorsement. Rd232 ^talk 02:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• I don't give a damn what you have "got to laugh" about, but rather that you chose to use your status as an admin to edit a protected article simply because it was protected in the wrong version. Doesn't speak well for you. UnitAnode 02:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Doesn't speak well for you that you misrepresent the situation so dramatically. For a start, a key policy page is not an article. For another, I'm dramatically opposed to the out-of-process deletions, and dramatically supportive of deleting unreferenced BLPs via a process that gives a reasonable stab at sourcing them. I'm unsure which version of the page supports that position, perhaps you can figure it out. Rd232 ^talk 02:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh please. It was Lar who protected the policy and he's very much involved in this mess. It was a deliberate misuse of tools on Lar's part. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it was Jimbo's fault. (Hey, we're running out of people to blame here!) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

UnitAnode, Rd232 has a good point, you can't selectively choose which rules you and other editors can follow. Why did you leave your last account? Was your abrasive attitude similar then as it is now, would this have something to do with it? I notice that the editors who are vandalized the most tend to be the most abrasive and hard to get along with. Ikip 07:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd recommend that you mind your own damn business, and focus on the BLP problem, and how to fix it. And if you're really REALLY curious, you could, you know, click on that link in my sig that takes you to my userpage. It will give you my "history." And to be quite frank with you, I'm not here to make friends with people. I like to (gasp!) edit the damn project. If you're fairly reasonable, and don't espouse things like keeping unreferenced BLPs, we'll get along. If you're not, we won't. Either way, this isn't real life (where you'd find me a veritable pussycat), it's an encyclopedia building project (or at least it's supposed to be). Do the hard work of building it (which includes removing the rubbish) or try to build cliques and win friends. Either way, leaving me the hell alone might be a good option for you. UnitAnode 07:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		The Rescue Barnstar 3 - to be awarded to people who rescue articles from deletion or assist in identifying and rescuing articles. This can be independent of or in cooperation with the Article Rescue Squadron. This barnstar is awarded to Rd232 for restoring and sourcing Alfredo Fuentes Hernández after it was disruptively deleted. Ikip 07:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Biographies brainstorming

Can you move your proposal from the village pump to the Requests for comment? It would help centralize discussion enormously. Thanks! --MZMcBride (talk) 16:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Human Rights Foundation

Could you have another look at the article? Current status: [5], explanatory talk page post: [6] --JN466 18:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Legal threats

Regarding this post, please peruse Wikipedia:No legal threats. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

please peruse wikt:threat. Funnily enough, the failure to recognise the importance of intent was the reason I made the remark in the first place. Rd232 ^talk 07:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I saw this at WP:ANI; Rd232, you may wish to comment there. I don't see this as a WP:NLT issue, but as a WP:NPLT issue. I believe Rd232 has clarified that no threat was intended, and hopefully now that someone else (me) has come along to say that I can understand why one could be perceived, this needn't escalate any further. Using the word "libel", however intended, can be a pretty big red flag for a lot of people around here, and is best avoided completely. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, using the term "libel" in discussion about editors and actions is perceived as a legal threat and has the same chilling effect. It should not be used in this way. See WP:NLT. Verbal chat 21:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I replied at ANI. WP:NPLT says "It is important to refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as legal threats" - key word being reasonably. And this had already been clarified, so this hooha is entirely unnecessary. Rd232 ^talk 22:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring

Since I'm sure you're aware of WP:3RR, I won't template a regular, but you're edit warring against consensus to remove text at Mark Weisbrot, twice today.[7] [8] 3RR is not an invitation to revert three times. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Not knowing the BLP exemption to 3RR might be excusable, but I did refer to it in the edit summary... Discuss on talk first before re-adding controversial BLP material please. Rd232 ^talk 22:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you might want to read WP:BLP more carefully; using it as an excuse to remove well sourced text doesn't usually work. (Even less so when it's already been reviewed at BLPN.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH as suggested on the talk page. How about a chance at some discussion? Also WP:NOTVOTE. The synth is blatant. Rd232 ^talk 22:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The "synth" is not "blatant" at all. It's in your mind, and it doesn't excuse your edit-warring. This won't end well for you if you continue. UnitAnode 22:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Any chance of waiting for external input before re-inserting contentious BLP material? Rd232 ^talk 00:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It's already been to AN/I and BLPN; perhaps you can ask the other parent. In the meantime, it might be expedient to explain exactly which source is not a reliable source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

"It" has not been to ANI. What has been to ANI has been your ridiculous NLT complaint (after it wasn't a threat was clarified). It was raised at BLPN, but you poisoned the well by accusing me of edit warring. Neither you nor UnitAnode has deigned to address the argument. Did I say that any of the sources were not reliable? I did not. Perhaps you should read WP:SYNTH, and if you have questions about how it applies, discuss on the article talk page. Rd232 ^talk 00:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Good grief, Rd! I am "external input." I came across this, reviewed it, and agree with Sandy that it's not SYNTH, doesn't violate BLP, and is relevant to the given article. Just because you don't like the "external input" doesn't give you the right to edit war to exclude it based on your own interpretation. UnitAnode 00:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

one external input from someone who clearly doesn't know or care what WP:SYNTH is does not resolve the issue. Rd232 ^talk 00:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Second warning on 3RR

You're at three reverts on RCTV, and few of them appear valid; your reverts include removing words like "allegedly" and "according to the government" and removing unsourced text rather than adding a citation needed tag. [9] [10] [11] (the last edit removed neutral words like "allegedly" and "according to the government").

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

the words were inappropriate and not notably neutral. The unsourced opinion "None of the channels have been given a right to defend themselves in court. " is not something meriting a citation tag. The decision is a regulatory one and it can be challenged insofar as the law permits. It's just an opinionated way of saying that it was an administrative decision. Rd232 ^talk 11:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

"Allegedly" and "according to the government" are not non-neutral, and regardless of your reasons, you're still at 3RR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I saw "according to the government" here as a redundant qualifier introducing unsourced doubt as to whether the government is lying. Maybe that was from the context of the edit, and the phrase is OK, though unnecessary. Anyway, thanks for the repeated heads-up on 3RR. Rd232 ^talk 11:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

"Allegedly" is certainly unwarranted. They were actually suspended for violation of the law. Given the administrative lee-way (in the decision months ago to set a 70% level) I can see where "allegedly" is coming from, but it's not merited. Rd232 ^talk 11:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Discuss it article talk; you're still at three reverts, and WP:3RR still doesn't justify your numerous reverts, or give you license to revert sourcable text at will, and ignore reliably sourced versions of events in favor of biased sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Clearly we disagree - the point of duplicating the conversation on my talk page is ... what exactly? PS unless you're trying to say I've exceeded 3 reverts (I haven't), the repetition of that point is unnecessary. Rd232 ^talk 11:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Rd, I'm not ignoring your post on my talk, just have an awful cold and cotton brain. When I'm feeling more chipper, will reply there; I hope we can start talking with each other and not at each other then. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

well get well soon eh. I'm sure we can be more productive in our interactions. Rd232 ^talk 15:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Rd; I'm better today, but I've got to get through FAC promotions, and a massive RFC was kicked off at FAC while I was sick, needing my attention, so I must neglect you a bit longer ... Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Exclusive invitation

Rd232/archive6, Wikipedia:Wikiproject new user welcome wants you!

We are currently asking for concrete, constructive proposals on how to avoid the deletion of 48,000 articles created by 17,500 editors through sourcing. These constructive proposals will then be considered by the community as a whole at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people. Please help us: >> User:Ikip/Wikipedia:Wikiproject new user welcome << For now, participation on this userpage is by inviation only.

Ikip 03:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Advice on how to proceed with contentious issue.

Some time ago, I stumbled upon Trans man, and noticed what appeared to be a very strong pro-LBGT POV. I brought the issue up on the talk page and suggested/made some changes, one of which even stuck for awhile. The addition included a link to Sex assignment, an unsourced article with what I see as a very strong POV.

I'm a bit unsure of how to proceed in this matter, as most of the regular editors to these pages, like User:Benjiboi, appear to have very strong personal convictions and a desire for Wikipedia to reflect them. I view this as both a) highly inappropriate, and b) incredibly difficult to counter, especially by myself. As someone who has had success in dealing with contentious issues, I thought you might be able to offer some guidance. I was wondering if you could, first, review the pages and tell me if I'm off base, and second, suggest some ways I might be able to improve the articles without running afoul of the resident editors.

Thanks,

Throwaway85 (talk) 06:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

In general, the answer will be (a) some good sources supporting your views; (b) dispute resolution of some kind - a content WP:RFC perhaps. On the particular issue, though, I'm not convinced there's an actual problem. Benjiboi's latest edit of "assigned a female gender identity" seems fine to me, though "role" might be clearer than "identity". Rd232 ^talk 19:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the second opinion. I still see it as problematic, but I won't pursue it too fully. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I may be wrong - I don't know that much about it. If you do pursue it, good sources will be pretty essential. Rd232 ^talk 09:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Long ago..

This must all seem long ago...which it is of course, self nom, not schizophrenic, no opposers no questions, no recall. Off2riorob (talk) 10:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I've previously noted that I oppose recall: it posits a model of administrators as elected representatives which is false. WP:DR is that way (and ultimately it can lead to desysopping if required). Rd232 ^talk 10:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

As long as you have not allowed your POV to cause you to abuse your admin tools, I don't see any need for recall (which doesn't work anyway). I haven't had time to review yet your use of the tools-- only made a list of actions for review. I was certainly shocked to see such a horrific smear made by an admin on Manuel Rosales, particularly when you have lectured me on not understanding BLP, which set me back on my intended conversation with you. I still intend to get back to you to try to understand and work out our differences, but I have a Drs app't later today, and my very first and most urgent priority is to clean up our most disgusting and disgraceful BLP on Manuel Rosales. Once I've done that, I do hope we can continue dialogue. Cleaning up a BLP that is a discredit and embarassment to Wiki is my priority right now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

G7 bot

I made a comment on the Bot approval page ... I originally only intended the bot to deal with article talkpages that had been created, then blanked and marked for G7 by Wildbot ... I have no issue if that was the only tasks for now - that's easily closer to 100 pages a day (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Sikh Federation

Hi, is the British Sikh Federation different from Sikh Federation (UK)? See this edit. I reverted it before I realised that you had inserted it specifically. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I must have thought so at the time, but I've completely forgotten, it's not really my topic. Rd232 ^talk 19:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Actually I can see from Google that there is another organisation by that name, but it's not self-evidently notable. It did some press releases in year 2000; none since then are on its website. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Alvarez

I'm going to try to get through the Alvarez article today, but my cold/cough is interfering. If there are other online sources you want me to read, could you please park them on my talk page when you have time? Across the various discussions, and not feeling well, I've lost track of what I need to read. I can probably get through offline sources by next week, if I can locate them, so park those as well, if you can. Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for the help, Awickert (talk) 16:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

what exactly was the conclusion?

The reliable source noticeboard is just a noticeboard where interested editors discuss sourcing. It doesn't issue rulings or enforce conclusions. And it explicitly is not a place to continue content or other editorial disputes. Everything that could possibly be said about the reliability of that particular source, has already been said. Dlabtot (talk) 00:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I know it doesn't issue rulings or enforce conclusions. But in view of the fact that some editors wish to remove every use of the source (or tag every use "unreliable source?") some kind of agreed conclusion is necessary. They made every attempt to prevent one being reached, and if it's left as it is now, then they will continue on the same basis, and claim that the RSN debate supports their view. Rd232 ^talk 01:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I've taken RSN off my watchlist until this particular battle moves to another venue. I have no wish to discuss this issue further. Please leave me alone. Dlabtot (talk) 02:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Biographies of Living persons solution: Projectification?

As someone who commented on the BLP workshop I created, please review this proposal to see if it is something that the community would support.

Harsh constructive criticism is very welcome!

Better to figure out the potential objections now. I am looking to remedy any potential objections by the community.

Thanks. Okip (formerly Ikip) 03:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

So what do you think of Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Biographies_of_living_people/Phase_II#Proposal_by_Coffee.3B_a_means_to_an_end?

It seems like your proposal uses existing policy "that alternatives such as incubation or AFD are available by discretion" along with User:Jehochman's 7 day idea. Am I missing something? Thanks. Okip (the new and improved Ikip) 11:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Venezuelanalysis (still)

I just got it from a gscholar preview - see [12] "... Wilpert's website (,www.venezuelanalysis.com.) is a valuable resource for Venezuelan news and analysis. 24 Daniel Flynn, “US 'Deeply Disappointed' by Venezuelan President Chávez's Speech on War,” Reuters, October 30, 2001" Seems to be a mention in the footnotes of the paper. Don't think there is much doubt, but don't know whether this would satisfy Sandy, without access to the whole paper.John Z (talk) 21:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know either. Would you pop that on the relevant talk page? Rd232 ^talk 21:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, she's seen it. Rd232 ^talk 21:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I have the journal article now (why are you citing something without having the full journal article?) He's not writing about VenAnalysis, he's citing Wilpert in a footnote. I've added it. Must I do everything myself? :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice to see John Z helping out again, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

you: "He's not writing about VenAnalysis" vs source: "Wilpert's website (,www.venezuelanalysis.com.)". Your grasp on reality seems too frequently conditional on its utility. Rd232 ^talk 21:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, y'all shouldn't be citing tidbits you pick up on Google scholar, as they can be out of context or incomplete. If you did that on medical articles, you wouldn't last long; it is expected that you have the full journal article if you're citing it. I'm worried about your scholarship on several articles, but once again, glad to see John Z pitching in to help you out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

You realise it was John Z's citation originally? He's not helping me out. Rd232 ^talk 21:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I just saw that, but I'm still worried about "your" scholarship (and his), because you removed a request quote tag (which you shouldn't do) when you, in fact, did not have access to the journal article, apparently, and he quoted from a google scholar tidbit, without having full context. The article previously gave the impression that he was writing "about" VenAnalysis, not citing and footnoting them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

He did write about VA. In a footnote. (The footnote isn't referencing VA in the text, it's referencing a book by Wilpert.) Rd232 ^talk 21:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Same; please refrain from removing tags until they're resolved, and please avoid citing journal articles if you don't have the journal articles. Tidbits can be taken out of context. I think we're done now (with that part -- do I also need to request a quote from Lonely Planet to see if it, too, was a google tidbit rather than someone having the whole book, and with likely missing context?). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from being patronising; insufficiently explained tags may be removed. Also, please refrain from ignoring awkward questions. On your user talk I've asked you repeatedly to clarify the RSN issue: Please explain what the answer was. Since you continue to act as if the outcome was to endorse your and Alek's unsourced view of "reject as too close to Chavez", would you care to explain what, taking into account all the views expressed, the conclusion actually was? Rd232 ^talk 21:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, please refrain from constantly ignoring inconvenient points. He did write about VA. In a footnote. (The footnote isn't referencing VA in the text, it's referencing a book by Wilpert.) Rd232 ^talk 21:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed the talk page inquiries asking for the quote? Even though I pointed them out in edit summaries? Please re-read the entire thread at RSN (not just "[my] and Alek's unsourced view"): there's plenty of feedback there. If I had time, I'd summarize it for you, but it seems I'm doing all the content editing and BLP cleaning up on Venezuela articles these days, and trying to keep up with FAC as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I didn't, that's why I said insufficiently explained. I couldn't see how any context could change the meaning of the very clear statement, and indeed your addition does not - despite your best efforts - change the meaning. As for RSN - there are various views from a number of people, and I would judge (it's a little difficult given the volume of text and the shifting discussion) the consensus to be what jayjg said, and which you failed to respond to, except to confuse the issue: see WP:RSN#Break 5. Rd232 ^talk 22:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully that's a lesson learned about hitting the revert button; you should check the talk page. I don't have time today to review that very long discussion again, which to me was clear enough. Read WP:BLP, and then re-read *all* the responses on the page. I believe the context does change: it's one thing for an article itself to analyze and discuss a particular site or media outlet as its primary topic; it's entirely another thing to footnote something (i.e.; explicitly *not* discuss it in the article, which requires a different level of scholarship). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

"Hopefully that's a lesson learned about hitting the revert button; you should check the talk page. " - the degree to which you don't listen to what others say is only slowly becoming clear to me. Rd232 ^talk 22:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Most collaborative, experienced and respectful editors don't seem to have a problem communicating with me: YMMV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you actually read what they write. You asked a question "did you miss [the talk page]?" I answered "no, I didn't, that's why I said insufficiently". You answer "hopefully that's a lesson learned" to check the talk page. My mileage is very low, Sandy. And kudos on the disguise on that personal attack - like a tennis pro putting disguise on a shot. Rd232 ^talk 09:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Sandy for digging up the whole paper and context. Vanderbush did write a short sentence about VenAnalysis, inside a footnote, as I thought, so I don't see how the added context and content in the article is necessary or changes anything. I probably have the Lonely Planet book somewhere, but here is a google view of the page.John Z (talk) 22:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that, John Z: I do appreciate not having to find it myself. Our article previously gave the impression the article was discussing VenAnalysis directly; now it's more clear. I appreciate the timely response; since Google book excerpts aren't highly regarded at WP:FAC, as entire books should be consulted for context, I'm a complete techno-dummy when it comes to using googlebooks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Hurricane Katrina fringe theories

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

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

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

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Since Sandy didn't have the decency to come here and tell you: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scalabrineformvp. You're now being accused of being my sockpuppet or maybe its the other way around. Or maybe we're both Off2rio, I can't really tell. Confusing stuff 187.46.135.78 (talk) 19:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Venezuela Information Office

You are edit warring on that page. I looked into the diffs, and I cannot say that your BLP claim holds up entirely, as the material is all sourced. Please take this to the talk page. NW (Talk) 18:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks

• Stop it; I don't need to template a regular, but a good read of WP:NPA and WP:AGF may be useful. No, I wasn't previously aware of the "foreign agent" issue; I'm a math/science person, and my mind doesn't go where yours went. At any rate, stop the attacks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Second warning, AGF and NPA

Please read WP:NPA and WP:AGF and refrain from spreading untrue statements about me across Wiki. [13] Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe it to be true that you are conducting a smear campaign, and I'm in the process of collecting evidence. You on the other hand have repeatedly repeated claims about me which you know to be false, because I have shown them to be false and you have made no argument. Rd232 ^talk 23:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Would you care to explain what "claims I am repeatedly making about you that I know to be false"? I'm always willing to strike anything that was posted in error. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Well that sounds so reasonable that I'll have to take you up on it when I have the time. Not right now, but soonish. Rd232 ^talk 23:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I hope you will understand if you find the time just when I'm traveling, have had surgery followed by a cold, or am dealing with six RFCs at FAC :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

SPI page

Rd232, I've moved one of your comments already, but you posted again in the Evidence section in direct response to Sandy. I believe since you are not the filing party, your comments should go in the "Comments by accused parties". --Andy Walsh (talk) 19:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't notice the prior moval. Followed the usual talk page convention without thinking about it. Rd232 ^talk 21:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Separate query

Rd232, will you please decide if you are or are not retiring, and remove the tag at the top of your page if you decide you're not? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The tag at the top of the page says "SEMI RETIRED". Below that - as part of the template - it says "This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia."

In addition I've already said to you that I only engaged with the whole CEPR issue because of the open OTRS ticket not being handled (and then CEPR people, shamefully, being blocked from explaining their concerns!).

To be absolutely clear: my intention to reduce my level of activity to the occasional edit was going quite well - a week without any editing at all - until it became clear that your (continuing) smear campaign had led to an OTRS ticket and was not being dealt with appropriately. Rd232 ^talk 21:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

I got interested in the Venezuela and Chavez issue after reading "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" by Greg Palast, who I think is one of the best American investigative journalists. He has some really good documents in there (that he has 'found') about the coup against Chavez and on the IMF and World Bank. After reading the articles on Wikipedia recently about the issue, I thought they were pretty well done, and I wanted to thank you for your effort. Then I read the talk page and after seeing Sandy's crazy talk discussion I read all about the controversy between you and her. Now I am not someone who thinks that Chavez is perfect by any means, but I do think that he is treated incredibly unfairly by the US media (such as calling an elected man a dictator but turning a blind eye to the dictators they put in power). It's a shame that we cannot get more true information on this remarkable (even if you think in a bad way) man, so that we can properly judge the merits of the work he does. But anyways, I just wanted to thank you for the constant harassment by SandyGeorgia you put up with (and she somehow gets off with saying that YOU personally attack HER (and says it ALL the time), although she never gives sources where you "attack" her, unlike your sources that show her attacking you). I hope you will not fully retire from Wikipedia ever because you seem like someone who really wants to help others receive the truth, regardless of your own personal opinions (too bad Sandy and the people she rallies against you can't see that or do the same themselves).

And why does she care so much about whether or not you are retiring and if you have a tag up there?129.133.193.100 (talk) 21:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

er, thanks. I have that book somewhere - must have read it - but don't really remember it. It is sadly ironic that Sandy is pressuring me to either fuck off into retirement or take the semiretirement tag off, given that I largely semi-retired because of her harassment. Unfortunately, she is incredibly good at it. Unsolicited messages and emails of support from people who have had similar issues with her on unrelated topics have made me feel less alone; but also more exposed. People seem scared to take her on - and it's bloody obvious why! Rd232 ^talk 21:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, especially with her edit amount and the way she rallies her supporters to attack those she disagrees with. It's really quite astonishing. I always wonder why people like her (or any people with strong but narrow views, like racists) are willing to put so much energy into attacking other people, and its sad that its usually way more effort than people like me (and you, I'm guessing) who just want to get by and make what improvement we can, and aren't filled with such passion from all that hate or personal sorrow or whatever spurs people like her. Good natured people seem to make a lot less change (in the world in general) than their opposites (like greedy people). Just don't let her get to you, because she's not worth it, and the truth always wins out eventually (especially with help like yours).129.133.193.100 (talk) 21:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Folks, seriously. You need to focus on content, not people. I can very much see that anon IP's comment compares SandyGeorgia to a racist. Tone it down, please. I have had my intense frustrations with other users and have had to act out my frustrations off Wikipedia. I suggest you do the same. --Moni3 (talk) 21:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I think we can focus on whatever we want with a private discussion. And I did compare her (and her characteristics) to a racist's (you can "very much see"? I'm glad since that was the point. I obviously wasn't trying to hide that). And that doesn't mean that she is a racist at all. It's called an analogy; it gets at certain central similarities (although for someone with so much hate against the poor people of Venezuela who support and love Chavez in favor of the rich white aristocracy down there, I wouldn't be surprised if she were one. Although I have no opinion on whether or not she is a racist, and I gladly admit that I have never seen her say anything overtly racist). And what is this about intense frustrations you have to act out off Wikipedia? I don't get frustrated so much I have to flip out (especially not over a website)... And also, my post was not really about Sandy (although it mentions her), it was about thanking Rd for his work on Wikipedia and discussing a shared interest in Venezuela. Maybe you should focus on yourself instead of people who aren't even concerned with you, and let people talk if they want to on "their own" pages129.133.193.100 (talk) 21:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha. Your response is noted. --Moni3 (talk) 22:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Moni3, I am immature and I hope my comments do not reflect on Rd232 at all. And to Rd232, her followers really have it out for you don't they? Checking your page more than you do!129.133.193.100 (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Rd232 I just wanted to apologize if this caused/causes you any hardship from Sandy. She is already using this discussion to say that she was called a racist (when I explicitly say I have no reason to believe that) and by her lack of identification of me as the author, seems to imply that it was from you or off2rio who made the statement that was never made. Also see here for more on my understanding of my own misuse of Wikipedia129.133.193.100 (talk) 03:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes, that's both ludicrous and yet entirely typical of Sandy. It's also true that this exchange on my talk page - as well as some of the other things you've said/done, which I've not really followed - was not particularly helpful. I see you're blocked now; I don't know whether that's merited or not, but I do know that editing other people's user subpages, without an invitation, is generally not done. (You can copy things from there to your own page to critique, or copy somewhere else relevant.) Take advantage of the 24-hr block to rethink what you're trying to do here and how successful you are. Rd232 ^talk 07:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Removing Puttaraj Gavai link

You don't need to remove the links to him, redlinks are good and someone could be enticed to start the article properly, after all he won a Padma Bhushan, so he's clearly notable. Regards Hekerui (talk) 16:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, fixed. Rd232 ^talk 17:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Query on my talk

I responded on my talk with a query for you ... and thank you for mentioning to the IP above how inappropriate some of his posts were. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Very busy day, but finally responded on my talk. Will catch up more when I can. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Secnut

A tag has been placed on Template:Secnut requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:14, 19 Feb 2010 (UTC) 03:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Extended explanation: I'm not sure if this was a recent addition or not but {{nutshell}} has a parameter to change the first two words, "This page", to whatever you want, so the separate {{secnut}} isn't needed. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:17, 19 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Delete away. Rd232 ^talk 08:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Dawn Wells

What if the sole dissenting party is one who has been blocked twice on the page, once for WP:BLP violations regarding this same content, and once for edit warring to restore it and taken to WP:BLP/N four times over it, one of which suggested he be banned from the article? We're basically spinning our wheels here while he keeps denying what everyone else has said and has engaged in increasingly severe attacks upon the rest of the editors on the talk page? It seems futile to keep taking it to wider audiences when the opposition to his viewpoint has grown over the last two years? I was seriously considering filing an ArbCom request about the article, the behavior and the contentiousness that increases. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I had the impression there was more than one user disagreeing. A content RFC is certainly far preferable to an arbcom case, unless the behaviour stretches across lots of issues and articles. And it's just possible that an RFC (which might have been done sooner) would produce a sufficiently clear weight of consensus that the minority would accept the content conclusion, which is far preferable to pursuing behaviour-based dispute resolution. Rd232 ^talk 11:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, there was, but late last night, the other editor conceded that it appears there is a consensus, so I don't foresee that as a team thing. It goes back to the same editor who has been trying to insert this for a couple years with a various cast of editors objecting. I don't foresee that the one editor will accept it ever, since he regularly returns every few months to try it out again and see if anyone objects. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I see in the later section Chowbok saying "I think it has been demonstrated that the consensus is to leave it out. " In which case an RFC is unwarranted; WP:DEADHORSE applies. Rd232 ^talk 13:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Half Barnstar
		Awarded to you and SandyGeorgia – for having the courage to forgive, and for proving to the rest of us that it is possible to rise above disagreements. Here's to you both! JN466 21:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Paid site?

Brainstorming is yelling out ideas without inhibition in the hopes that a revolutionary idea won't be not proposed for fear of embarrassment.

Brainstorming idea: WP editors must pay a nominal fee to edit. If you have to pay, you won't vandalize, including AOL users. This could be revenue neutral as good editors will get rebates. Someone else mentioned that editing quality would increase if editors got paid.

I think the AOL problem might be just one Canadian editor based on the articles edited (mostly Canadian topics) Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand your point, but practicality and perverse incentives aside (spammers and PR companies will happily pay), this is vastly contradictory of Wikipedia's philosophy that "anyone can edit". We still allow people to edit without even signing up for a free account (takes seconds) - and there are good reasons for that. See Wikipedia:PEREN#Prohibit_anonymous_users_from_editing. Rd232 ^talk 18:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Scribd

I didn't know what it was, but it should have occured to me to look for Scribd; I just wanted to get rid of Aporrea sourcing :) Looks good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Merging Ashkenazi Intelligence back into Ashkenazi Jews

Hello, I've reopened the merge issue on the AJ page[14], and was wondering if you could weight in. Thanks, A.Prock 21:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

using names

hello, I really thought wikipedia wanted people to sign up and use names, but you are saying no? I thought they wanted new editors, but no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles Rodriguez (talk • contribs) 17:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Why was the Icarus Williams article deleted

The article was very clear who the individual is and what his work is so it really doesn't make any sense to have deleted the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricerichard (talk • contribs) 03:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Update on the big picture

Rd, I've got to get busy attending to some IRL issues, but wanted to thank you for the collaborative spirit. On the bigger picture of how to approach all of the Ven articles:

WP Venezuela

The Ven Invite template so far hasn't appeared to generate much interest, and we can't even identify Ven articles until Titoxd fixes the templates, so for now, I'm not going to spend too much time on that.

"Burp"

The socking issues (times two) slowed us down, and I fear that will always be an issue. When I switched gears to begin working on Ven articles, I put Mattisse out of my mind, and completely failed to recognize her hand there. I was as suprised as anyone when ArbCom identified her socks. I appreciate that you were the first to highlight that Charles Rodriguez was likely a sock, and worry that I have to really AGF to avoid looking over my shoulder always, and targeting the wrong editors. :)

Sound and the Silence

I received the book today, and a very quick glance, it looks pretty neutral, presenting issues from both sides, and containing a lot of interesting info. As I find time, I'll excerpt things into a sandbox for your review.

Moving forward

I hope our recent work on smaller articles has shown other editors that edit warring and personalizing issues is not the way forward, but we still have a few "mulish" editors (on both "sides") involved who would rather revert and remove than discuss and collaborate. I'm not sure we can make progress on Chavez and bigger articles until we develop a more collaborative spirit among other editors, and I hope our work on smaller articles is showing the way.

Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Poking around assessment issues, would Venezuelan constitutional referendum, 2009 be a Good Article candidate? Rd232 ^talk 12:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

There's an unbalanced tag on it ... can't recall if I added it, but I switched it to a C, because anything tagged can't be a B (B class was upgraded to the equivalent of "almost ready for GA" a few years ago, when C-class was added, and the new C became the old B). Could we get it ready for GA? Probably ... if we weren't so busy ! I think JRSP and I worked on that ... but then we lost track after the referendum, so I'm not sure it's really finished ... it would take some work to finish it up, but it may be the closest we've got, since between JRSP and me, we got the right structure in place early on and balanced each other's edits ... I'd have to look next week (pr/ar FACs on weekends). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, I didn't see that. It's not a particular priority, at a quick glance I just thought it looked like it might be, and doubling the number of Venezuela Good Articles would be nice :) Rd232 ^talk 13:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It is in the realm of possibility; we could do it after things settle down. I'm sure The Revolution is close to GA, and unless edit warring breaks out when Steve begins writing the controversial parts, it could be headed for FA, too ! Steve is just an excellent film writer (and an excellent person). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, Rd, we're a bit constained in terms of article assessment. I've been crossing the line in terms of trying to get the WP Venezuela structure in place and the assessment categories working, but technically, we can't assess articles we've worked on (which means just about everything!), so we're going to need to find someone to do the assessments ... I haven't yet figured out who that is going to be :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't really aware of that. But it's OK if it's a stub and obviously stub class, yes? Only an issue if we think it's better than that? This might be a good opportunity for collaboration. Rd232 ^talk 13:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Since there's not really anyone else who can/will do the assessments, we can bend some rules safely, on stubs surely ... technically, I shouldn't have changed your B to a C on the Referendum article, since I worked on it (and I may have been the one to add the tag), but I know we're in the stages of trying to get the cats and project set up and working right ... our first step now is to get a bot to tag all the articles so we can see where we stand ! When I have more time, I'll lay out for you what we have to do to bring that to GA readiness ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Another thought, you might have a look at Shut up Chavez (can never remember the full name of that article) ... it should be fully cited and complete, and with a bit of tweaking and finishing, we might bring it to GA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Well I'd have mixed feelings about that being GA: it's such a Wikipedia thing to have an article on it at all! (And the "Subsequent events" section is a bit tenuously linked.) Rd232 ^talk 16:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it would need work. I'm not much of a fan of the GA process, but if you're just looking to increase our count, that one is at least close. But The Revolution should be there soon ... (Shut up already survived AFD). I've seen lots of reliable sources that make the "subsequent events" link, but just haven't cared to add them yet ... only so many hours in a day :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry I've been no help at WP Venezuela ... had to stop and deal with the massive socking issues. Have done nothing on the bot issues, and unsure if I'll get to that ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

That's OK. Optigan13 sorted out the new article feed, I've fixed Wolterbot's cleanup listing (I hope), and I think I can do the tagging. Rd232 ^talk 14:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

See my contribs, can't keep up with that for now, but I checked the cats and as far as I can tell, you've done a good job ... some of those cats made me want to browse, but no time, no time! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

holy guacamole, the bot's already running ... now my watchlist will really pop a cork. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

only if you haven't ticked "Hide bot edits from the watchlist" in your preferences... Rd232 ^talk 20:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, ha ... good idea temporarily, until/unless the socking issues are brought under control ... I normally have to see bot edits, since GimmeBot botifies FACs, but I can hide them for today. Thanks ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Found some more categories downstream, listed them here. –xeno^talk 14:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Good grief. I can't look! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• If you're intimating that the region is overcategorized, I would tend to agree... Category:1956 in Venezuela... –xeno^talk 15:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Yep :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Categories in Category:Category-Class Venezuela articles with 5 or fewer members (not including subcategories): [15]. –xeno^talk 15:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• What a mess. Well, there are two aerial tramways in Venezuela, if that's encouraging :) And I'm quite certain there's more than one Catholic church in Venezuela :) What should we do with this mess? Go through those and mass CFD those that aren't needed? No fun ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oh, the distraction of browsing! Who knew? I have so much else to do ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• You could just boldly upmerge the cats and CSD C1... –xeno^talk 16:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• I don't speak cats any more than bots ... maybe Rd knows how? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Well what I mean is just figure out what the appropriate parent category would be... So for say Category:1973 in Venezuela you would replace that with Category:1970s in Venezuela (needs created) and replace all the 197x in Venezuela with that category. And then tag the (now empty) categories with {{db-empty}}. Technically you are supposed to wait a week, but I'm sure the responding admin would look the other way. Many CFDs would probably be more time-consuming. –xeno^talk 16:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

In some cases there's clear overcategorisation; categories that in theory could be filled with notable people, say, but in practice nobody's every likely to bother. In other cases, it's more of a case of underpopulation - and hopefully this will be gradually fixed, and keeping the categories encourages that a tiny bit. In any case, I'm not sure that our limited energy should be spent specifically sorting out categories. I'll make a note at WP:VEN, and leave it at that, with ad hoc fixing where the need is clear. Rd232 ^talk 17:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I went through everything the bot tagged as B-class, based on older assessments from other Projects -- basically, they were mostly old Bio B-class ratings, which were done by bot before the old B became the new C. I moved the Coup article to C from B, because it's tagged, although technically I shouldn't have done that, since I've edited it ... but there's no one else to assess, so ... agree that sorting those cats isn't the best use of our time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Now you tell me! Am I supposed to be removing the auto on the ones I check? I'm finding lots of bios with old B-class assessments that should be C (and we inherited a bunch of hurricane FAs :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

yes, remove the two auto attributes after manual checking. Rd232 ^talk 21:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• FYI the first run is done, you can see the results at User:Xenobot/R#WP:VEN and your assessment dept. talk page. If you decide to add more of those categories that I discovered, I can make another run. –xeno^talk 23:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

YBF

Iain Dale called it that, see the reference I cited for indisputable proof. SE7^Talk/_Contribs 21:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Twitter is not a reliable source. And it's only his claim to have originated the term. And why do we care? The Guardian ascribes the term to Blaney, which is significant. Rd232 ^talk 21:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

**Guardian:

"Blaney has said. "We have been described as a Conservative madrasa, so we bring the next generation out to the States and bring them back radicalised.""

So Blaney doesn't describe it as that at all, he acknowledges others have. Second reference for Iain Dale origination: [16].

You need to change (or accept someone else changing) the article so as not to be extremely misleading, which it is at present.SE7^Talk/_Contribs 21:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know which Guardian you're reading: "Blaney has described the YBF as "a Conservative madrasa" that radicalises young Tories".[17]. Incidentally, this is a conversation better suited to an article talk page. Feel free to move it. Rd232 ^talk 21:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

You bring up another blog. Please see WP:RS. Rd232 ^talk 21:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• • No conflict of interest from me; I intend to re-write my intro. If I was hiding something, I would not have left up pro-British Empire, pro-death penalty, anti-Communist, anti-republican and pro-Peter Hitchens userboxes, now, would I? On the other hand, if you're making the suggestion that a conservative cannot edit articles regarding conservatives, you're being extremely narrow-minded. In fact, have I made any edits to the YBF article that have been complimentary towards it? No; in fact, I've further added Andrew Rosindell to the people who've spoken for them.

You're also making the schoolboy error of assuming a conservative is a Conservative. SE7^Talk/_Contribs 22:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I referred you to WP:COI, which doesn't say you can't edit with a COI. And I'm not assuming that "conservative" = "Conservative"; both would give equal rise to COI questions in this context (removing the note while editing a page related on both counts). I'm not going to make an issue of it, but the question arose and I pointed it out. PS If I may say so, you're coming across a tad confrontational. Rd232 ^talk 22:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I do apologise if I came across as confrontational. I have rv'd my userpage edit and I'll deal with it at another time, instead. SE7^Talk/_Contribs 00:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I hug thee

Thank you for adding to WikiProject:Latin America articles that should have been there from the start. I am very curious why they were not honestly. I didn't even realize the wikiproject even existed until today and I must thank you for that. Good show old sport! Zazaban (talk) 20:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

thanks :) I think the wikiproject never really fully got off the ground; I only came across it a few days ago and thought if I do a bit there'd be more chance of others noticing it and getting involved. Hope it works; suggestions welcome. In the mean time, if you like the idea feel free to add your name to the participant list and remove the "inactive tag" which no doubt puts people off. Rd232 ^talk 22:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I was even in the process of creating a WikiProject:Hispanic America. Yes, I will be adding my name. Zazaban (talk) 21:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Ack

Got distracted, and forgot ... and now I don't remember where it was, but you were correct that I read a post hurriedly and thought you were disagreeing with me, but when I looked at it later, you weren't, so my answer made no sense. Sorry :) I'll try to finish up over there tomorrow ... Best, bedtime here, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, no prob. I could have been clearer; I was rushing a bit. Rd232 ^talk 09:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Do I not have better things to do with my time than to clean up after Marturet? <sigh> ... will get to all of that when I have time, don't know when it will be, unless you get to it first ... S, the secretary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Marturet is really willing to accept any input from me... In general, it is the fate of those who are more competent and more conscientious to clean up after the rest... and not just on Wikipedia. PS It's not really secretarial; more like a parent/teacher maybe; should have a teaching element anyway, by example if nothing else. best, Rd232 ^talk 15:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

He doesn't seem to be listening to me either :) And I'm dealing with socks, copyvios elsewhere, FAC issues, arb issues ... crap ... what happened to MoS maven/teacher and actually editing articles? I'll get there ... and this time I'll take the time to document on his talk the ways he could improve his editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy D.

Why did you nominate [18] for S.Deletion? Piratejosh85 (talk) 23:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Well it was split from Legal burden of proof. There's no need for a different capitalisation of Philosophic burden of proof. Rd232 ^talk 00:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

James Theodore Holly

Hi, I've undone your removal of links to the deleted article James Theodore Holly. Just because that article was a copyvio doesn't mean there should never be an article on him. +Angr 00:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. Bad use of Twinkle there, forgetting to untick the box. Rd232 ^talk 00:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Idea Barnstar

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		For a excellent idea. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 13:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

thanks :). Those and probably other bots are very useful for wikiprojects, and should be advertised more widely. Rd232 ^talk 13:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

---

"S.Sebastian's Walk" Rd Thanks for your advice about the improvements on this page, however, how can I use citation in Spanish for an article in English?. I have a lot of information about this event but I'm just follow the rules about citation. I'll wait for your answer. Thanks, CompostelCompostel (talk) 22:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

James Dean Tokarek

Hello, My name is Levi Peterson and I live in Maple Ridge, British Columbia, and I have a question regarding the removal of an article I tried to make called James Dean Tokarek. I believe James is well known enough to be on this glorious site. He is a professional hockey player in the NHL and I noticed that nobody has made a page on him yet. This article was "Speedy Deleted" by you when I was creating the page. I had not put any content on yet because I just started. Surely this was a mistake but I would like to offer my appology for any inconvenience that I may have caused you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tokareka1 (talk • contribs) 23:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Rd232. You have new messages at WT:Friendly.
Message added 00:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Airplaneman ^talk 00:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi again

After much deliberation I thought I'd ask you as I am distraught by this. Kindly just reply here, that'd be great. When disagreement arises during editing, is it then appropriate for editor X to not address the other editor Y, but instead go to and ask an outsider, while accusing editor Y - behind Y's back - of wikilawyering, (a pejorative)? Personally I don't see how such labels and tactis will benefit, but this could be simply my naiveté and belief in civility. Fragma08 (talk) 13:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

In general, attempts should be made to resolve disagreements directly before bringing in others. But asking for advice is OK - if X genuinely thinks Y is (possibly) wikilawyering. But whilst wikilawyering does happen, in my experience it's more common for the term to be used either to obscure X's own wikilawyering, or as an alternative to engaging with discussion of Wikipedia's rules and how they should apply in a particular case. You're right (in your reference to "pejorative") that the term tends to lead away from WP:AGF and from collaboration. Solution: use dispute resolution to bring in others, and then try to back off and let others make the arguments that need making. Also, don't forget to consider the possibility that you might be in the wrong; try and see it from X's point of view.

Since you use the rather strong term "distraught", you can email me more details if you wish, and maybe I can give more specific advice. Rd232 ^talk 15:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind advice and neutrality. Appreciated. In this case X did try resolving matter through rational and civil discussion citing wiki guidelines. I am not set up with email on wikipedia. How do I go about that so that I can email? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fragma08 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, no problem. To send/receive email via Wikipedia you need to add your email address into your Preferences. Rd232 ^talk 23:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

OK then. Thanks. I will set that up and revert. Fragma08 (talk) 21:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit requests

Nice job there! I'd give you a barnstar, but I see you're not collecting. So, why not extend this system to fully protected pages too? --JokerXtreme (talk) 11:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, you already did, I see! Nice idea, again! See you around. --JokerXtreme (talk) 11:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't collect them in a single place - I just archive them with the talk messages - but it's still nice to receive them. :) The protected pages I've just done - I was testing the semi-protected first. Rd232 ^talk 11:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, in that case:

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		For your brilliant idea about edit requests at MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext and its implementation, I award you this barnstar! JokerXtreme (talk) 11:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

(I know you already have one in this page, but it was the most suitable :) --JokerXtreme (talk) 11:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :) Rd232 ^talk 11:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll second that, well done. Now I'm expecting a flood of editprotected requests, so maybe you can help out there :) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

We'll see. I think it will affect semiprotected more, and that doesn't require admin intervention. Rd232 ^talk 16:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep, great idea, don't get me wrong, well done - but, please, see my comments in t'pump; Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Make_it_easier_to_submit_edit_requests ta.  Chzz  ►  08:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Please check this out Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Problem_with_apostrophes. --JokerXtreme (talk) 13:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Toltecs

Check this out; looks to me like they used the button, but it ended up on the template talk, not the article?

Note, I've already moved it and asked the user, in User_talk:Ivanpares#Toltecs.

 Chzz  ►  05:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

They must have used the button on the template, which they reached from the transclusion list at the bottom of the edit / view source page. Following up at VPT. Rd232 ^talk 15:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice job with the edit request button

I just realized my problem report about the apostrophe was somewhat terse. You deserve congratulations for making Wikipedia more usable for new users. Your improvement seems like a very good idea and well implemented. Cheers, Celestra (talk) 22:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Your report was terse but clear enough (I thought the problem would be easier to solve than it turned out...) Rd232 ^talk 06:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Eva Golinger

I've given 138.28.128.188‎ a 3RR, original research, and personally worded warning ... perhaps the IP doesn't understand, so I'm not reporting it to AIV, but if it does it again, one of us should report it ... I'm going to be pretty busy over the next few days, so you may be the next one in the line of fire! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Done (I HATE that page, it is so hard to use ... ) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:138.28.128.188_reported_by_User:SandyGeorgia_.28Result:_.29

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Project tags?

Hello, I was just wondering why you're tagging Wikiproject talkpages with Wikiproject tags (like here). Isn't kind of redundant? Not a criticism, but was just wondering if there was a bigger masterplan behind it as I'd noticed you editing a few project pages lately. Regards, --BelovedFreak 23:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

It's motivated mostly by User:WolterBot/Cleanup_listing_subscription#Requirements. Though it also helps provide an example of the banner, and of the code to produce it (if people look at the wikitext). Rd232 ^talk 23:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! --BelovedFreak 23:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed this: Wikipedia:WikiProject Tanzania/Recognized content and other similar pages you've set up. I do some work with African country-related portals, and I just had to say how much I appreciate this, and am even (in a slightly sad way) a little excited! This will be very useful; I didn't know there was a bot doing this, so thanks!--BelovedFreak 13:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that bot stuff for supporting wikiprojects (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide#Use_bots_to_save_work) is pretty cool and very useful. BTW if you can figure out how to make the formatting with the assessment table play nice, let me know! I thought it would neatly right-align, but it doesn't... Rd232 ^talk 21:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Sticky prods

Hi Rd232/archive6'! You participated earlier in the sticky prod workshop. The sticky prods are now in use, but there are still a few points of contention.
There are now a few proposals on the table to conclude the process. I encourage your input, whatever it might be. Thanks. --Maurreen (talk) 06:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI WP:AAU

Adopt-a-user isn't really suited for seeking mentorship as such. It's more for new users than established ones. Some of the adopters are pretty new themselves! –xeno^talk 13:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes. Is there anywhere else to look for mentors though? Rd232 ^talk 13:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Not really, to be honest. There was Wikipedia:WikiProject User Rehab but that seems to have died before it got off the ground. I suppose in the absence of a better alternative, pointing them to WP:ADOPTERS is better than a kick in the pants. –xeno^talk 15:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Interesting - I never saw that Rehab thing. Why not have a subsection of Adopters for "experienced users in need of guidance" or something. Rd232 ^talk 16:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Lack of interest I would bet. –xeno^talk 16:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Meh. Rd232 ^talk 16:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Seems that there are less and less people willing to deal with intractable disputes and problematic users. See the backlog at WP:MedCab, for instance. –xeno^talk 16:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, there are some... ;-)  Frank  |  talk  18:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Is it bad that I just barely suppressed a desire to fix the redundant entries in that category (and partly because the parserFunction wasn't cooperating)? –xeno^talk 18:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion

Re this deletion, can you explain why you think it's implausible? I moved the page from there to Protpittayapayat School to achieve proper capitalization, but the redirect would be helpful to those who just type the name directly. See, for example, Al gore, which of course redirects to Al Gore.  Frank  |  talk  18:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Well one should keep in mind that the search box is case-insensitive. Typing Protpittayapayat school will get you to the article. There is actually a case to be made for not having redirects from lower-case titles, as it could lead people to use unprintworthy redirects. –xeno^talk 18:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Xeno, your breadth of knowledge continues to be impressive. Or else my cluelessness knows no bounds; take your pick.  Frank  |  talk  18:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

If only this knowledge translated into disposable income, I'd be a much happier man =] –xeno^talk 18:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Mephedrone

You may already have seen this at the relevant talk page, but I think I've disproved (well, given substantial evidence against) PE's claim that WP was the source for the 'meow meow' name - thought you'd like to know as you mentioned the claim in the Signpost. Best Hadrian89 (talk) 18:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Updated Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-04-05/In the news to match. Let me know what you think. Rd232 ^talk 20:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Yup, that new version seems to cover it all. And props for doing it so speedily. Now I just have to write and tell PE the bad news... Hadrian89 (talk) 21:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about Veolia water

I think this may be my talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ismartyparty please tell me via email if im rong, and by the way i read the coppy and paste rules and it says somewhere you can coppy and paste if and only if asking there permission so im contacting Veolia water via email if thats ok with you, best regards chris

Yes, that's your talk page. Well I don't think you're likely to get their permission, and as WP:COPYPASTE says, you should really look at writing in your own words anyway. Summarise from several sources, from newspapers and such, rather than copying or rewording from a single source. Practice your research skills finding new sources!

You're still blocked at the moment - you should really ask User:CambridgeBayWeather to give you another chance, if you;re willing and think you're ready. I've left you a welcome message as well - check out the WP:Tutorial and other help available. Rd232 ^talk 17:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

There is not a single chance that User:CambridgeBayWeather would unblock me as he has blocked neally 1,000 users, is there another way with a chance to get me unblocked? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.6.109.13 (talk) 17:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh and by the way if you could unblock me i would be most grateful, also just some info of how usefull i have been, i have been a big contributer to Veolia Water Southeast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.6.109.13 (talk) 17:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I've unblocked them so they should be able to edit again. I think there are sincere so I'm willing to take a chance. something lame from CBW 19:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

thanks. Rd232 ^talk 19:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Albert Moll

Thanks for finishing off the Albert Moll moves. May I inquire, though, why it needed so many steps? I thought I had already moved the pages and created the disambiguation page which would just need to be moved over to "Albert Moll" -- did I do something wrong? Thanks Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 09:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Not at all - it was my error. I thought the CSD was to make way for the German psychiatrist, and then almost immediately realised it was to make way for the disambig page. Rd232 ^talk 09:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thanks again :) Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 11:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext

Hello. When you made your proposal to improve Protectedpagetext's design, I promised to give a hand. Here is a draft of what I had in mind: User:Dodoïste/Sandbox.

On Wikipedia, we are almost always using tables for layout. This is an outdated practice, and I believe Wikipedia could learn from many websites. I tried to make it look clearer by removing every unnecessary detail, so the eye would not be disturbed. The two groups of text are separated by a large space, so they are spontaneously identified as two different things, per Gestalt Psychology#Prägnanz (a theory often used in usability).

It might feel a little weird at first, because there are boxes and tables just about everywhere on Wikipedia. But I get the feeling that it will fit in with the new theme Vector. Yours, Dodoïste (talk) 23:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't feel weird, it feels cleaner. The only criticism might be that using white space to separate in this way makes text go further down the screen, slightly; and on very small devices this might involve (more) scrolling. The effect is probably small enough and effects few enough users not to worry about, but it springs to mind. In general, I've been arguing to take up more screen space with this message to be clearer for users; and I think this achieves that. Have you proposed it somewhere? Rd232 ^talk 07:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) I removed some useless margins. Now the white space is only 10% of the width, so it should look slightly better on small screens. I believe the difference is not significant anymore.

I haven't proposed it anywhere yet. Should we try the Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)? Yours, Dodoïste (talk) 19:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's where the recent discussion was on this. Rd232 ^talk 21:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done : Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#New_design_for_MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext. Yours, Dodoïste (talk) 13:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, nobody replied so far. Was my message unclear, or something ? What would you do in that case ? Yours, Dodoïste (talk) 20:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Input on these techy things is often hard to come by. Crosspost to WP:MediaWiki messages, and if there's no input, just put in an {{editprotected}} request. Rd232 ^talk 21:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Done on WP:MediaWiki messages, and I also completed the draft, it is now functional and ready to be used in MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext. Thanks for your help. :-) Dodoïste (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:RUN

We got Article Alerts to work well on WP:RUN. Then you deleted the page WP:RUN/Article alerts and made some other changes with the result that the article alerts stopped working. I then tried reverting a portion of your change, but it still does not work. Could you please take another look? Thank you for your help. Racepacket (talk) 10:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

User:ArticleAlertbot is broken due to an API change. This has nothing to do with whatever cleanup I did at RUN. The bot owner has been notified (User_talk:B._Wolterding#AAbot_broken_due_to_API_Update) but is unfortunately mostly absent in recent months (though he did run his cleanup bot about a month ago). Rd232 ^talk 10:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I fear that your fix may not work when the bot comes back up. Historically, articles were tagged with {{Running project}}. Last week, we ran a bot which tagged new articles with {{WikiProject Running}}. Although someone added a redirect from Running project to WikiProject Running, you state that the bot does not work with redirects, so are you confident that the bot will include both sets of articles? Racepacket (talk) 11:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure. I think so, since this situation (redirects to banners) is very common and it really ought to be accounted for (it's just the bot needs to know the ultimate banner that has the code in). To be safe (or if there's a problem), you could change the subscription to point at the project category, since both templates are definitely putting pages into that. Like so: {{ArticleAlertbotSubscription|wgcat=WikiProject Running articles}}. Rd232 ^talk 12:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Non controversial?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Indonesia/Cleanup_listing The project is sorely in need of regular cleanup - if no one fixes the bot or whatever it is - maybe - but simply because it might be inactive for a period of time - it is a bit like someone coming along and proposing to delete the indonesian portal :) (which has happened) SatuSuro 11:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The cleanup listing request was broken; there was no useful content (just error message), and deleting the page avoided making people think there was. I fixed the cleanup request and I've asked for the bot to be rerun, but the bot owner isn't very active. Rd232 ^talk 11:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for responding and explaining - it is appreciated - the bot was brilliant when it worked - pity it has gone quiet - maybe like some things in life one has to wait and be patient :( - thanks again - specially if we can get it run again - who knows? - cheers and thanks

btw - what would you do with: - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3nity_Brothers - any thoughts? SatuSuro 11:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Possibly send it to WP:AFD. Or try to clean it up; or leave a note at a relevant wikiproject. Rd232 ^talk 12:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Ta - thanks for that still mulling over the issues - cheers SatuSuro 13:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Rd232. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Database reports.
Message added 02:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tim1357 (talk) 02:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I responded again. Tim1357 (talk) 01:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

re your edits to Template:Inactive

Hi there. I'm not sure why at Wikipedia:Lectures the category link is displayed under the banner like so: [[Category:Inactive Wikipedia WikiProjects|]] but I suspect this edit has something to do with it? I'm not sure how to fix this. -- œ^™ 04:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually I'm pretty sure it was a different edit - the one which assumed that {{PAGENAME}} would always include "WikiProject". Failure is worse than anticipated for pages not even that long. I need to stick an #if in there somehow. Rd232 ^talk 07:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello RD323. I see you added a cover pix of the American IBM. Your image if quite faded. You may go here http://www.ibmandtheholocaust.com/27Editions.php. However, I am sending some proper hi-res and lo-res graphix to Stifle and he can can share them with you. I do not know how to upload them. I give you permission to deploy them in association with the article on my book. Or contact me via edwinblack.com. However, to contact me via email, you must use your real first and last name. Thank you for some positive efforts. Check with Joe. Edwin Black —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.128.247 (talk) 00:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

replied at User talk:Edwin Black Washington DC. Rd232 ^talk 06:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Images

I have received some images from Edwin Black for you. If you want me to forward them to you, please email me so that I have your address.

I am not watching this page, so please copy any talkpage reply to mine (or use {{tb}}). Stifle (talk) 08:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI

You might want to weigh in here. --causa sui (talk) 15:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Not really - I've archived it as useless. An RFCU would really be far more appropriate, and I suspect that will happen. If so I hope there will be some breathing space allowing all concerned to consider whether they should cast the first stone, or can see the other's point of view, etc. Rd232 ^talk 23:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Andy Hayman

Hey, I just wanted to say thanks for your efforts on Hayman- I've been meaning to look for some more material to expand the article with for a while. Do you have an interest in the area or were you just "in the neighbourhood" so to speak? Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I've been following the News of the World phone hacking affair, and done quite a bit on that article. That's my interest, and it connects with Hayman. Rd232 ^talk 00:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Not an article I've stumbled across in my travels, but I'll have a read of it. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

VPD move

I attempted to revert the move, but apparently wasn't successful, and now the redirect pages have histories so I can't do anything more, as a non-admin. Do you think you could revert the moves fully and clean up the redirects? Equazcion ^(talk) 17:58, 25 Apr 2010 (UTC)

Just as a note, I reverted the move and then restored the history lost during the move. Please do feel free to check it though, in case I made any mistakes. Regards, --Taelus (talk) 18:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for assistance

Thanks for your help reverting the actions of 173.63.38.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), and giving a warning; the IP has since continued the vandalism, and been given another final warning, and I have just reverted the vandalism a third time. Thanks for any further assistance. SynergyStar (talk) 01:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Blocked the IP for 1 month. Probably a school or similar public location. Rd232 ^talk 08:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

A question on RfC's

I have posed a question at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment and would appreciate it if you (as a prior contributor to the page)might take a moment to review it and, perhaps, respond? Thanks JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration and respone. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion for Template:Collapsible option-doc/doc

I have proposed a speedy deletion for Template:Collapsible option-doc/doc, for details please go to the page of the template. --Quest for Truth (talk) 09:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

That was briefly confusing! I've now figured out what it is and speedied it WP:CSD#G8. Rd232 ^talk 09:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

From Edwin Black

If you have a question about graphics or a book, ping me inquiry@edwinblack.com. That might be helpful in this process. You may also phone me. Edwin Black Washington DC (talk) 19:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

broken WikiProject Centeal America tables

Hi. It looks like an edit you made has broken the country subproject tables such as User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Guatemala at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guatemala etc. Please look at Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index#Wikiproject Guatemala table broken for a link to the exact edit. Do you think you can fix this? Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 18:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Waterfalls

Hello Rd232. I saw you removed the {{Project}} template from WikiProject Waterfalls. Was this a mistake? Please answer on my talk page or leave me a {{talkback}}. Thank you, --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Labour manifesto

I think it is notable when you consider there are around 2 million people in the UK with some degree of visual impairment, and therefore this would have potentially affected a lot of people who might want to have the manifesto in these formats. Paul Largo (talk) 18:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

CADIVI

I think you are POV when only show old information, like the reason about what CADIVI exists back in 2003, and with the only source of the government, why you keep editing reliable source updated information, people has the right to know more about specific details about this regulation, is like trying to explain the Britain Elections with only one paragraph give me a break, if we are neutral we have to show both sides, not only the official story, remember Wikipedia does not have strict rules. BCLH (talk) 14:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I've said why I removed those details - Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. CADIVI says why it was created. If you have some proper sources about the economic impact of exchange controls, that might be relevant. Opinion (sourced or otherwise) plus details of how to exchange currency are not encyclopedic. Believe it or not, I've been a Wikipedia editor a long time, and I know what I'm doing, which is writing an encyclopedia. Rd232 ^talk 15:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

For example, the CADIVI article needs to be about CADIVI - and not about Venezuelan exchange controls. Decisions made about those controls, and their effects, may well belong elsewhere. CADIVI is just an agency, and discussion should take into account the extent to which it makes the relevant decisions, or just does admin. (This is one area to clarify: to what extent does CADIVI have decision power in allocating foreign exchange? How much freedom does it have as an agency? etc.) Rd232 ^talk 15:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

PS this sort of discussion should really be at Talk:CADIVI to make it more likely others can get involved. Rd232 ^talk 15:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok so we can create an article about efects of the currency control in Venezuela?. Does that fits in Wikipedia? BCLH (talk) 16:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

In principle, I guess (depends on the exact title). I can't find any comparable articles on that kind of topic for other countries though, and Foreign exchange controls itself has hardly any content. It would probably be better to start off with a section in Economy of Venezuela (although that article needs lots of work generally, adding a section won't hurt, it's a mess anyway). It can then spin off into its own article if the content justifies it. Which is the key point: it needs to have good sources providing economic analysis, not anecdotes or mere listing of the details of the controls. Rd232 ^talk 19:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

let's stick to Talk:CADIVI then. Moving my comment there. Rd232 ^talk 19:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Ashley Chiles

Hey, I'm curious as to why this page was deleted? I supplied several sources and explained the significance, the page was impartial and not an advertisement, so I'm wonder what criteria it met for speedy deletion. Another article about Ashley came out yesterday ( http://shopping.statesman.com/SS/Page.aspx?ptype=SS_TILE&secid=82494&pagenum=1&facing=false ) and so I'm wondering how with several newspaper articles this filmmaker is not being considered important enough for wikipedia. Help? Njohnson lim (talk) 20:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Not sure why you're asking me, but a blog and a minor mention in a minor newspaper is not sufficient notability. You could try looking at WP:AFD for deletion discussions about biographies and get more of a sense of how "notability" works in practice. Rd232 ^talk 21:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)