User talk:Renamed user e8LqRIqjJf2zlGDYPSu1aXoc/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Checking

So are we permitted to revert back this latest User/IP edit [[1]] back, as of our discussion here at WP:ANI? [[2]].

Just checking protocol.

Regards and have a good day. - LouisAragon (talk) 01:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

At this point, if I were you, I'd try to discuss it at the talk page rather than doing it myself. Give it a few (or several) days for discussion to develop, maybe ask at the WikiProject Afghanistan talk page for outside input. Basically, follow the standard dispute resolution procedures. Unless there's a WP:BLP issue (I don't see one), the change you're trying to make is probably not urgent enough to excuse edit warring, and that's the road you're headed down at that article. My instinct is the changes you're making, at least from the glance I took at the diffs, are trivial enough that it shouldn't be triggering edit warring. But as I've said before, topic areas like Afghanistan, much like Macedonia, the Balkans, Eastern Europe, etc. get a lot of hard-to-resolve disputes. People get angry easily for a variety of reasons, and cycling through revert warring only inflames things more. While Wikipedia is not a battleground, the old saying that one should pick one's battles wisely is an apt one here. If you try to fight on grounds that are less important, it's easy to lose sight of the big picture. That's my take on it anyway. I'm not saying you're right or wrong—I simply do not know enough about Afghanistan to say either way. But I know just from looking at that article history that your approach could use some refinement. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Mendaliv, the thing is, the only people usually that bother on Afghan related articles, are Afghans/South Asians/Central Asians themselves. Outsiders like me and some other users are rare to find who bother to get some of the Afghan related articles fixed correctly and keep PoV/biased/unsourced edits monitored. However, from experience, I just know it doesn't work especially on such pages, to assume good faith over and over to the same users, to ask numerous time to the same persons for a WP:CON, just like you said, as it goes for certain regions in the world. I mean just look here [[3]]. The guy has no virtual idea of the whole "thing" called vandalism/WP:VANDAL, but immediately replies with a bite and even makes an ANI threat while having made what, 10 edits in total while busy here?

It's energy consuming not only for us, but also for mods like you who have to cope with lousy/frivolous claims on the ANI page.

I just know there ain't any way there can be a consensus reached on that page for now. At least with the constant stream of anonymous IP's dropping Rv's and Undo's. In my opinion, the best thing to do is "firstly" to revert back that bogus RV "vandalism" claim we just talked about on WP:ANI, and then perhaps pushing for an actual permanent semi-protected status. I'm pretty sure by this we'll reduce the amount of random IP hoppers who edit/revert/"actually" vandalise, plus you force more people to actually use the designated talk page as it should be.

Would like to hear your opinion about this.

Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 03:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

You're right that it's a fairly small group of people who have both the know-how and the energy to edit in the Afghanistan topic area. But that doesn't really change the rules, except insofar as an admin is willing to enforce discretionary sanctions on a disruptive party. Anyway, I disagree that the right move is to revert at this point. I'm certainly not doing it, and I'd strongly advise you to try and discuss at the Talk:Afghan diaspora, as well as possibly asking for help from the various dispute resolution processes. Fair or not, sometimes to get things done in these disputed topic areas, you have to go through ten times the amount of due diligence and have ten times the patience that are necessary in other topic areas. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I can agree with that. I'll try it out on the talk page again for some time to come, but I think I'm still going to push for indefinite semi-protected status too at the same time. Will at least surely help with these constants redundant edits/Rv's as of now by new IP's every day. I'm pretty sure we'll see more peeps at the talk page then too. Good constructive opinions man, appreciate it. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 06:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

ANI

Care to place an opinion here? After a comment by Mjroots and me it's kind of stuck right now, with no clear solution and consequences found/imposed as of yet. [[4]] Regards - LouisAragon (talk) 01:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll try to take a look at it in the morning. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi

"Please just post diffs of conduct you believe supports your argument that livelikemusic is engaged in inappropriate behavior."

Would you mind telling me how to do that as I don't know everything about how to properly link to something. I'm new here. Thanks in advance.Cebr1979 (talk) 03:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The basics are covered here: Wikipedia:Simplest diff guide (as linked in the instructions for starting a thread at ANI). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much.Cebr1979 (talk) 03:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Neither of us have even been to that page in a couple hours now. Both of us have moved on.Cebr1979 (talk) 22:31, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Iran

Hello Mendaliv. You commented in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive842#PoV pushing. WP:3RR, political allegiance, bias, and so go on about a dispute at the Iran article. You are one of a small number of uninvolved people to take a look. Just now there is a new report at WP:AN3 about edits by User:Quzilbash123 at the Iran article. See WP:AN3#User:Qizilbash123 reported by User:Binksternet (Result: ). Perhaps you want to comment there. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:08, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I see this has already been handled, but I left a comment there anyway since I concur with the outcome. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

dogging edits

I'd appreciate it if you would stop dogging my edits on this article. You showed up on the AfD for Novavax and now you're here. I'm in the middle of editing and improving this article and just now adding sources. Please stop. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Huh? I don't get it. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. Please stay off my talk page and stop dogging my edits. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Respectfully, @SW3 5DL: I will be paying close attention to your edits to the article on NewSpring Church. If you have a problem with that, I suggest you take it up with an administrator. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:58, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, SW3 5DL, consider yourself on notice that this edit summary is inappropriate and a further personal attack. I suggest you refrain from making further personal attacks. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:00, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Can you try to help out over at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Thompson_(Aryan_Brotherhood)

I have a new editor with like 6 edits that signed up today. They are blanking out whole sections of this article, and putting really negative BLP type stuff up. I warned her a time or two and she stopped. So I went to work to try to piece the article back together from the old diff, but they have started again. If you are an admin, can you take a look? I am going to hang back now and will try to help fix the article later if needed. If you are not an admin, could you try to get one to look at this page?

Michael_Thompson_(Aryan_Brotherhood)

thanks, Carriearchdale (talk) 12:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Carrie. I'm not an admin, but I've taken a quick look at the article and the edits you mentioned. You're in the right as far as Morningstar90's edits to that article being inappropriate; there really aren't any references. I think, for now, taking a wait-and-see approach is better, and warning Morningstar90 as appropriate. I don't think an admin is going to get involved at this point. I'm wondering where all that content came from out of nowhere though; it looks pretty decently formatted for a new user. I'll try to take another look later. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

BLP in userspace

Regarding this. I thought I made myself clear I intended to stay away from any diff involving an editor that may portray him/her in a negative light by specifically requesting CSD U1. And I invite you to visit my page again. Not only is this giving a false impression, but it seems to be WP;DEADHORSE. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee ^welcome!" 00:08, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't change the fact that you violated your NPA agreement by suggesting another editor had engaged in fraud to attain his academic credentials. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

One stupid remark by myself does not make many, OK? I urge you to take a more comprehensive, less one-sided, look at my history since February, and compare it with pre-August 2013. I used to be nastier with a higher frequency (not necessarily in terms of time, but in percentage of disputes I was involved in), compared with this, where I had exhibited considerable patience even with one who was unabashed about his disruption. You cannot expect people to change instantaneously, and while this doesn't excuse all of my actions, it puts many of them in an understanding light.

Also, if my only intent was to edit war with Paisan1 across multiple pages, I would not have bothered consulting him on his talk page. That should have been obvious from the start. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee ^welcome!" 00:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually it's two stupid remarks: You'd previously called another editor a loser on your userpage. I'm also not too sure about your other "memorable quotes" as far as WP:UP#POLEMIC is concerned. While I agree that sometimes a softer touch is needed with editors when they're making strides towards improvement as you claim to be doing, from every appearance you all but repudiated the conditions of your unblock within a month of agreeing to them. In my view there is no room in this project for someone who lacks the maturity to keep such commitments. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Key word, again, previously. In your eyes, it may be lack of maturity. Keep in mind "many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view". To me, as long as someone is not over-the-top as I once was before Aug 2013, there is always room in this project for him/her, and secondly, I won't be disabling Javascript (Wikibreak enforcer) to be conversing with someone who lacks the total patience and objectivity to avoid a one-sided view of a topic. See you on the shortest day of the year in my Hemisphere. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee ^welcome!" 01:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

While I see you're on wikibreak retired on wikibreak, I thought it would be a good idea to address your point—that some consideration should be given to Paisan1's conduct, and that your actions should be considered in light of that conduct. I have seen some of the stuff Paisan1 said: much of it foolish and ill-considered, and if said by a user with more experience, probably sanctionable. But that's the key: experience. Do you realize that, as of right now, Paisan1 has 119 edits (including deleted contribs)? Prior to this kerfuffle he had thirty-one edits. Compare this to you: On your LoM account you have 24,402 edits spanning some 2 1/2 years (including deleted contribs). Across all of your accounts, you have 44,991 edits going all the way back to 2006 (again, including deleted contribs). Can you honestly say that what you did, to an editor with fewer than one four-hundredth the number of edits that you have (some 2.4‰), does not merit a swift, sure, and severe response?
While there are certain behavioral standards that must be followed (and it's clear that Paisan1 did violate some of our core policies), that does not give you the sort of "shooting license" spoken of in All Quiet on the Western Front. Nor does it lower the standards to which you had agreed to conform when you were unblocked in February. Even if we assume the facts to be in your favor as much as is reasonably possible, your conduct cannot be excused. At best, Paisan1 might be subject to sanctions or restrictions, but your conduct would not be excusable. Don't get me wrong: it pains me to see this sort of situation, where an experienced editor is told that, no matter how useful his contributions to date may have been, his continued participation is not welcome. But that doesn't change things. You violated the conditions of your unblock—not once but twice (that we know of). And upon this being discovered not only did you not apologize or give a reasonable excuse, you straight-up started Wikilawyering: the unblock conditions were expired, you were pressured into it, it's not your fault. Well, that's not good enough. And if you don't believe me, look at what's been said at ANI. Look at it objectively. Don't argue that it means something other than what it means. Acknowledge that there's a real, serious problem and that what you did this time is unacceptable. Take accountability for your actions and responsibility for improving your behavior. With that, and some strong restrictions, I can see you capable of making a return in the near future. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Conclusion to Lieutenant of Melkor

(I almost posted this on the ANI page but prudence lead me to ask you directly instead here on your talk page)

I ask this with timid hesitancy and with a strong, sincere desire to not stir up a hornets nest now that it appears that this issue has been concluded: should I complete the projects that I was tasked to do (i.e. the summary argument or anything else), or should I address the issue that Skamecrazy123 asked me to? In law it is appropriate to thank the jury for their conclusion - but here (again, hornets nest) ... well let's just say that I am going to assume to not say a word unless your experience and better judgement tells me otherwise. I will however take the time to thank YOU for taking the time to investigate and provide the much needed diffs links that I was having difficulty learning about and providing, AND for supporting what I and others feel was the right and overdue conclusion.

(although I learned a lot and this was entertaining, I am now going to go back into the silent folds of darkness where I hardly ever edit anything and hope I never have this experience again. Peace!)--Paisan1 (talk) 18:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

No need for a summary argument here; ANI is very ad hoc and I can tell you from experience that based on the fact that he's blocked now, it's as over as it would be if the jury just came back with a verdict. Same for thanking everyone, it's just not necessary; in a different thread I half-joked that edit warring isn't a private wrong, that it's a breach of Jimbo's peace. By that I mean that the process being followed when examining an editor's edit warring is not at all like a civil suit, since it implicates the entire project's atmosphere... and I'm not thinking of myself as a criminal prosecutor (and I suggest you shouldn't take the same thought process). Some might disagree with me on the giving thanks to the participants, but in my experience ANI is just like that.
Anyway, while I regret that someone with such a long history of contributions has left the project, his behavior was just not acceptable. I'm also glad I took the time to take a look... it was just dumb luck that LoM's behavior at that thread started setting off alarm bells. I also hope that you don't have to face behavior like that again, but if you do, please take care in the future... were you a much more experienced editor I feel very confident that you would have faced a block for the e-mails you sent. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Acknowledged on each point.

HOLY HECK! After saying he would never edit my talk page again, HE DID ... AGAIN ... TWICE! [[5]] I would comment that it appears to be an addiction, but I'll stay far away from that one too)--Paisan1 (talk) 18:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Yep I saw that too. I mentioned one of those in the ANI thread towards the end as being too little, too late. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Please don't make this personal

This is my first time taking someone to AN/I, so sorry if I'm not doing it right, but please don't make this a personal grudge against me. I just want to be able to contribute without Dan56 making me feel uncomfortable and unwanted. I'm a professional writer in real life, so most of my contribs will be solid, but he has stopped me everywhere I go and made me feel unwanted and embarrassed. Harmelodix (talk) 21:39, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

That's fine, I didn't mean to make it personal, and I apologize if it seemed like I was. Please understand that accusations of impropriety made against contributors in good standing are taken very seriously. Accusations of hounding no less so. But you've got to understand, merely going and checking someone's contribs is not hounding, even reverting several in rapid fashion. Even if he'd never been on those pages before. It has to be a lot more than that.

Look, I'm not going to deny it: there are times when I get downright pissed when someone reverts my edits. And when that same person goes and reverts me on another page, I start to wonder if that person has something against me. My background is in law, so I hope you'll forgive me for giving some corollaries from my own experiences.

First, what matters is not that the other user reverted several of your edits in quick succession, but that there's a pattern of behavior indicating hounding, much as is required with a RICO case.

Second, I consider hounding similar to the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress. At base, the tort sounds pretty straightforward, right? Someone inflicts emotional distress on you intentionally, they should be found of having done that, right? Not quite. In practice, it's subject to one of the highest bars imaginable, and some of the most outrageous behavior you've ever heard of will be found not to meet the standard. Likewise, Wikihounding is subject to a very high bar. It has to be more than a few times over a short period, and it is entirely permissible to go and check someone's contribs, and even revert several of them, provided there's some good reason for it.

Anyway, I hope that explains my position a bit better. My apologies if it's a long-winded explanation. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:14, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! Per WP:HOUND: "The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions." I promise you that Dan56 is doing exactly that to me and several other editors. Please look into Dan56's history more deeply before you judge my complaint. His repeated reference to my edits as "tedious" is a personal attack. He reufses to engage me at talk so what can I do? Harmelodix (talk) 22:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I've taken another look. Specifically, I looked at the editor interaction tool comparison between your two accounts. In that report are 18 pages; only 12 of those have an interval between his edit and your edit less than the age of your account, and of those 12, I'm going to say two (User talk:Dan56 and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents) can't count. So we're talking about up to 10 pages, for which in all but one case Dan made the first edit (another has his previous edit over 400 days prior); but you rightly pointed out that may not mean anything. It looks like the crux of the dispute is on Get Rich or Die Tryin' (album), where I see you both going back and forth on a couple edits. Honestly, I've looked at the timelines for all 10 of those pages, and while I see some rather petty reverts on Dan's part, I see nothing indicating hounding. All those those pages, Dan had been there not long before you. Moreover, I'm willing to AGF that Dan's been put on a rather high state of sensitivity to possibly socking: I'm not saying that you're a sock, but that he might have been reacting to what he thought was socking. But after the 12th, I'm not so sure he should have been as concerned (though Coren did say there was some quacking).

All that said... hmm... some of his reverts are problematic. Reverting here to revert an "unexplained removal" by you, for instance. I'm not sure I'd call that a removal, and either way, it's not the sort of "unexplained removal" we usually refer to when we say we're reverting an unexplained removal: you didn't blank a section, for instance. That wouldn't make the revert inappropriate: if, for instance, Dan disagreed with the change you made, and wanted to invoke WP:BRD. But of course, in that case, the right move would have been to actually discuss. This revert, which the edit summary says was in order to revert an unexplained reversion... is just weird.

Frankly, I'm not prepared to say Dan is hounding you. If a similar series of edits happened again in a week or two, or if it persisted for another couple days, and Dan's odd reverts were targeted at you specifically, I would feel more comfortable asking him to back off. As it stands, I am not. With the number of pages you've edited (only 83 unique pages since June 8th), it's hard to say there's hounding. That said, I do feel comfortable instructing Dan to engage in discussion with you or to cut the reverting, and I will post my conclusions to that effect at the ANI thread. I also feel he is likely violating WP:BITE with his unenlightening edit summaries. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:00, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

If I could butt in.... I looked at those weird "unexplained removal" edits and I think Dan might have been using "unexplained" to mean "no edit summary", since Harmelodix had left the edit summary blank when making those edits. Not that I think this justifies his reversions, but I think it does explain those summaries. --Ca2james (talk) 00:17, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes a little more sense—just a little. I still think he's well within WP:BITE territory with everything else, though. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:19, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

That's a big part of my concern with Dan56; just because an editor leaves the edit summary blank is not reason in and of itself to revert that edit, which might be helpful. Dan56 is not judging these reverts by anything more than who makes them and where, which is hounding because he systematically drives editors away from pages he edits by reverting their work and confronting them everywhere they go. He exhausts them with petty content disputes and revert wars where one or more of his friends help him to control content. I strongly suggest that you watch him for a while, because if you pay attention long enough you will see that the tedious editor is Dan56, not the dozens of users that he drags through the mud in attempts to discredit them and drive them away. Medaliv, are you going to issue a formal warning to Dan56 at his talk page? Harmelodix (talk) 18:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

At this point I'm going to have to let this one sit for a bit: I'm presently occupied with another editor issue. I'll come back to this later. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Did you see this? Dan56 has continued to arbitrarily revert my sourced additions and now Caladium is trying to booomerrang me! You took the lead at the ANI report, so please don't drop off now. Please help. Harmelodix (talk) 18:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• He's still doing it. How long will this go on? Harmelodix (talk) 21:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• I can't believe that you think we are done. Dan56 reverted me at three different articles in three consecutive edits. HE's trying to drive me away and you goning to let him? Harmelodix (talk) 22:06, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

My involvement in that thread is drawing to a close, at the very least. I've already told you that I don't think sanctions lie against Dan. I don't see the hounding, nor does anybody else. If he edit wars, or does something else inappropriate, then maybe we can talk... provided your own hands are clean. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• Dan56 is now following me to heavy metal articles to arbitrarily revert my contributions. Are you still going to look the other way? Harmelodix (talk) 00:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• Now he's edit warring too. Harmelodix (talk) 01:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

At first glance it looks like you're the one edit warring at Master of Reality. In fact, it looks like you may have broken 3RR. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I made two reverts at the most, so no unless I am confused I did not break 3RR. You don't find it odd that I went to a metal article and Dan56 reverted me there as he has at jazz articles? Harmelodix (talk) 16:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I saw it wrong. It's hard to tell in these situations. At any rate, I don't think I'm going to be able to help any further with this dispute. I advise you to try discussing things with Dan or otherwise following the dispute resolution process. I advise against going back to ANI, because I still see no clear indication that the situation with Dan is one that can be resolved there. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

No worries. Would you please consider joining this discussion. As the lead user at the ANI report, I feel that we need your input for perspective, so that we aren't asking other who are completely unaware of the situation to bring themselves up to speed. Harmelodix (talk) 17:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• Please look at how many times Dan56 has reverted me for no good reason. There are lots more without my name in the edit summary, which I could dig up for you if needed. Please take a look at a few of these and see if you think they are valid reverts. And why does he keep calling me tedious? You said if he didn't stop you would think his behavior was questionable, well he hasn't stopped at all. Harmelodix (talk) 22:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• Another thing to consider here is that, prior to confronting my work at Master of Reality on June 25, Dan56 had made a total of 9 edits over the course of 18 months to that article and only 5 in the last year. After confronting me there today he has made 6 edits doing that. So, of his 14 total edits to the article 6 are confronting my work and 4 others are reverts of other editors. I.e., all he does is stop progress there, he is not expanding or improving the article. Harmelodix (talk) 22:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Accidental thank

There I am browsing the interwebs on my phone, looking at an edit on your user page, and I clicked the thank button under my thumb without realising it until afterwards. Not that the edit wasn't worthy of thanking (all your edits are, I'm sure :) ) but I didn't mean to do it. Mobile Wikipedia isn't as good as perhaps it could be. --Ca2james (talk) 20:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

It happens, not a problem. There really should be more confirmation dialogs for editing from mobile to be honest. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Your suggestion at ANI

I created the page WP:KEEPOFF after reading what you posted at ANI. Could you look at and refine it? I'm not the best writer, and I think someone else should have a look. Origamite^{\(·_·\)(/·_·)/} 04:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Hm, sure. I'm writing something on the talk page over there. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The A in ANI

I see you're hanging out at WP:ANI and other hotspots all the time, and you're doing a really fine job there resolving and moderating the various dramas. So have you ever thought about wielding the mop yourself? De728631 (talk) 21:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I have actually been thinking about it lately. Given a nom, I would probably try to stand for RFA around the beginning of August (I know it's not necessary to have one, but I've never been one to sing my own praises). Anyhow I appreciate the compliment! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I concur with De728631 You have my nod :) Mlpearc (open channel) 20:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Mlpearc, that really means a lot. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Barnett (2nd nomination)

Hi Mendaliv. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 June 19#Jacob Barnett, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Barnett (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 16:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. Really my interest was only in the DRV, not the facts of the case, so I'm not really qualified to comment on the AfD. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:06, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Is this hattable?

[6] It's an ad hominem attack that has nothing to do with this dispute. I don't want to hat it myself b/c I don't want to antagonize this particular editor. Right now this is a matter for DRN.--Atlantictire (talk) 19:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I just archived it. Hatting is probably needless. Yeah it's an inflammatory comment but hatting is itself often inflammatory. Positive feedback loop, just like with physical inflammation. It sucks to get called out on something that was said in the past, but I don't think hatting would solve it. If someone else wants to hat the discussion then by all means they should go ahead. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Corfu Channel Case, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages University of Prague and Sergei Krylov. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Fixed one. Going to need help with University of Prague. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Corfu Channel Case

Gatoclass (talk) 03:47, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much for taking the time to review and approve this! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Rules of the Game

I need clarification, is the discussion closed or not? If you want me to do your homework for you please clarify where. Perhaps it should be reopened.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 22:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd consider it closed for all intents and purposes. You really should take a look at the dispute resolution guidance and follow it rather than trying to address this as a behavioral issue and call for sanctions (if that wasn't your intent in the first place, then you should just walk away from the ANI thread). Beyond My Ken is a respected and experienced editor; even if you had clear evidence of misbehavior nothing would happen at ANI because there is an assumption of good faith that once pointed out, it wouldn't happen again, or that it was a temporary lapse. If there's evidence of a pattern of misconduct, that's another issue entirely. And by pattern, I don't mean a few isolated tiffs with unrelated editors. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree that this is not a behavioral issue and it should be perfectly obvious that there are countless other editors that would agree with me. Behind My Ken disrupted a Copy Edit that was being done from a request on the Copy Edit Requests page and which clearly had the tag "working" in the appropriate place. I reverted BMK's disruption. I think that you will find that this editor is indeed not a respected editor by many, many other Users and this situation needs to be addressed.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 22:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

It's your privilege to disagree, but I've looked at this matter and don't see what you're claiming. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Corfu Channel incident may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• War and Peace: Herbert Vere Evatt, The Rule of International Law, and The Corfu Channel Case]</ref><ref name="ABC"/><ref name="ICJ">[http://www.iilj.org/courses/documents/CorfuChannel.pdf

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Fixed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mendaliv (talk • contribs) 15:46, 9 July 2014‎ (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Bulova logo.svg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Bulova logo.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 20:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks like they got a new logo. Meh. I won't be replacing it. Thanks for the notice. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

ANI

Hi! As I imagine Echo will already have told you, I mentioned your name at ANI. I'm sorry that you should have been the subject of a number of insults which I am pretty sure were intended to apply to me (I think someone got confused about who he was talking to). Best regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Honestly I'm not too bothered by it—I've been called worse. While it's not supposed to happen on Wikipedia, I try to always take it in stride. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	Thank you for your support of me during a recent situation regarding another editor. I really appreciate it, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 23:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much. I'm glad things turned out well. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For your great work expanding the stub article on the Corfu Channel case and making it very interesting and informative. Cheers. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 07:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I hope it's not too incomprehensible—doing a full read-through this evening I realized things could be better. Hopefully it's a starting point for improving our coverage of international law. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Things can always be better. But that applies to everything. :) As it stands, your article is very well written and covers in a very informative way a landmark case of international law. Thank you for that. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 07:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK Review of Brod Pete

Hi, please see note on your DYK review, please click this for the link. -PAPAJECKLOY (hearthrob! kiss me! <3) (talk) 11:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC).

Responded at the DYK review. I think the article still has problems. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

ALT Problem for DYK nominee Brod Pete

Hi, please see note on your DYK review, please click this for the link. -PAPAJECKLOY (hearthrob! kiss me! <3) (talk) 13:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC).

For the last time, problem on DYK nominee Brod Pete

Hi, please see note for the last time, if you just want, please, on your DYK review, please click this for the link. -PAPAJECKLOY (hearthrob! kiss me! <3) (talk) 13:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC).

Again, responded at the DYK review page. I've requested a new reviewer. The page is in my view beyond any help I can give. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

RfC/U for Dan56

Hey, Mendaliv. Are you willing to certify the basis of the disputes relating to the pending RfC/U on Dan56? Harmelodix (talk) 19:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm looking back over the dispute, but I don't think I know enough about Dan56's history to usefully comment on it. Sorry. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Lucasfilm Ltd. logo.svg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Lucasfilm Ltd. logo.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Restored. No clear reason why it was removed and replaced with a lower-quality raster version. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:04, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

If it's any consolation...

Both the editor who started the RfC and another who supported it have been blocked as socks of an editor who's had a deep-seeded issue with me, thus confirming that suspicions I've had all along. Dan56 (talk) 06:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Meh. I still think you could have handled things better. Please don't take the sockpuppetry as a sign that everything Harmelodix posted was unfounded. While I don't think sanctions were necessary, I think your approach could have been improved. That's all. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong

You commented on Ryulong but didn't !vote. If you are opposed to the sanctions, do you plan to !vote Oppose? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I actually had. Unless there's another thread someplace. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Nature of Science

Mendaliv, I´m trying to improve this article. Can you please help me to remove the tag that suggest that it is a personal reflection or opinion essay. I already added some information to show that it is a epistemological topic. Thank you some much for your time!--Melodygar (talk) 01:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not really the right person to do it. More than likely, WT:SCIENCE or WT:PHIL would be the place to ask. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I will do that.--Melodygar (talk) 16:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Charles de Visscher

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "vivation". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 30 August 2014.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 04:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Sturm, Ruger.svg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Sturm, Ruger.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 18:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Now restored. Had been replaced by File:Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc. Logo.jpg, which was a low-quality (yet high resolution) raster version, using an incorrect color palette. I updated the SVG from a recent Ruger corporate document and restored it. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Meetup at the Hull House!

Hey Mendaliv. Hope you've been doing well. I noticed you were interested in a meetup we did at the Pritzker Military Museum & Library last year. The Jane Addams Hull-House Museum is doing an edit-a-thon later next week. It's kind of on a weird day of the week to accommodate students at UIC, but you're welcome to join us if you're free. Let us know if you can make it. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 23:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I really wish I could make it, but with my schedule, the commute from South Bend would make that an impossibility. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Corfu Channel case Copy edit

Greetings. As per your request at GOCE, I've begun copy-editing the Corfu Channel case page. I am not an experienced copy-editor, but my english (and British English) is adequate, I think. Regardless, you may have noticed that I added some {{clarify}} tags to the page; there were some sentences which I felt were unclear to the general reader, though they may have been abundantly clear to somebody well versed in the topic, such as yourself. If you wish to address these now, then perhaps we could work through the wording together. If you are busy, then no worries; I just thought I'd make the offer. Cheers, Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll try to look at those trouble spots in the next day or so. Thank you so much for taking a crack at this! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	For your good work at WP:RFEA. Thank you GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 07:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much! I only wish the board were more active like it used to be. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Will Hayden

As the editor who created and did the most work on the Will Hayden article, I'd like to know why it was deleted. To say he's not notable outside the TV show is like saying Barack Obama is not notable outside of politics...doing what they do is what makes them notable. And also, I created the article long before news of his arrest came out. Hayden is the star of a national prime time TV show...that alone should satisfy any WP:BLP concerns. Vjmlhds (talk) 16:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Notability is not inherited in the way you seem to be arguing. An AfD prior to the arrest would certainly have come out as redirect. But since there are questions about BLPCRIME, I'm posting a request for assistance at WP:BLPN. Thank you. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Your RfB has been approved!

	A drink on me!
	Your request for beer has been approved! You earned it. Upjav (talk) 17:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Requesting review of Gennady Stolyarov II - Articles for Deletion

Requesting your review of the entry in question on notability grounds, given your recent votes for deletion on similar grounds on other entries. Please see: this article's deletion entry on the Articles of Deletion page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.141.205.252 (talk) 19:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't think I'll be able to comment on this discussion. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:52, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

FYI

You may want to note the background of Brian Morris (judge) (second paragraph of legal career section). Montanabw^(talk) 20:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh cool! I think one of my professors would know him from those IUSCT days; they were both involved with it in 1994. Speaking of the IUSCT, the article is now in my sights for needing improvement. Thanks for the link to the article. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:17, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Any time. Any idea where to find official portraits of federal judges? Gotta be out there somewhere... Montanabw^(talk) 00:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know where to get those. Apart from checking the individual courts' websites (and leaving aside the question of whether we believe the images we find there actually are PD-USGOV), I'm at a loss. It might be one of those things someone on-wiki needs to liaise with someone in the federal government to get. Perhaps showing how bad of quality photos we have (see, e.g., File:Alex Kozinski cropped.jpg) would encourage some cooperation. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Prokaryotes

I don't assume good faith on the retirement. I recall that this happened once before somehow. That's a diva flounce, after a failed attempt to bully us into lifting the topic ban. In any case, the topic is finished for now. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm in doubt as to whether it's a serious retirement myself, but nothing more was going to happen in that thread anyway. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

User:PapaJeckloy's ANI report

Hi. I created an ANI report against Jeckloy based on my experiences and the findings on the SPI case. See the report here. Feel free to edit the report if I missed something out. Thanks. -WayKurat (talk) 15:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I've responded there. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:FFA logo.svg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:FFA logo.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Removal was due to vandalism. File now restored. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Corfu Channel again

Greetings. I just finished a complete check of Corfu Channel case. By my count there are four {{clarify}} tags left to deal with; I would be happy to work through these at any point.

I should add that I thought it an excellent article; I only wish there were more like it. Also, the only real common issue I found during copy editing was that your language was so concise that occasionally it became obscure; which is why my net edit actually added a tiny bit of text, rather than removing a little, as is more common with CEs. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much. I'm going to try to go through these over the weekend. I really appreciate the effort you've put into this. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, trying to do this by the end of next weekend. I can't seem to find my notes on the sources to take care of the two clarify statements in the Corfu Channel incident section.

The Law of the sea section clarify of course requires some elaboration; you're right that the article law of the sea discusses the convention that emerged in the 1980s. It's a partial issue of the law of the sea article being narrowly focused on UNCLOS (when to my understanding the term has a broader meaning), and that Corfu Channel also (at least indirectly) impacted the 1980s convention. For my own reference: I should look at Kaye (2012).

The Use of force section clarify is, if I recall correctly, a reference to the problems between the United States and the ICJ that came about following the Nicaragua v. United States case. My concern in drafting that section had been avoiding going too deeply into the controversies from that case, rather than those directly stemming from this case. That might counsel removing the statement entirely rather than elaborating. Again for my own reference, I should look at Gray (2013). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm not an expert, but this sounds good. Good luck with the GAN (wasn't that your plan?) Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Saleem Anwar Kailash Jhangvi./sandbox

I hope you don't mind my bundling three more pages into your MfD, but it seems unnecessary to start a separate one. I think this is just another young man trying to make himself seem important, who thinks WP is another social-networking site. He seems to have four Google+ accounts! JohnCD (talk) 19:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely fine by me! Thank you for including those. I'm going to refrain from opining on what this person's motivations are since I suspect my unsupported speculations would violate WP:BLP. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Wyndham Worldwide.svg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Wyndham Worldwide.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Replaced by an apparently new logo. No plan to dispute. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Why is this RfC/U still listed as a candidate?

It's Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Worldedixor - is there something still wrong with it? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

From the look of it, updates to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/UsersList need to be made manually. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. It isn't obvious who does that either. Dougweller (talk) 18:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Evidently anyone, even the filer. Someone's done it for me now. Dougweller (talk) 15:25, 15 September 2014 (UTC)