User talk:Rutebega/Archive 2

Wahabbi

When it comes to the idea of aspiring to follow Islaam as it originally was meant to be followed, they are not the only group that claims such. Sufis also claim that but are very much the opposite of Wahabbis. Not violent, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.11.120 (talk) 03:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The existing text of the page was not ambiguous in that regard. Any religious sect can aspire toward an ideal, and the only matter of contention is whether they meet that ideal. I would regard it as totally neutral to say that Wahhabism aspires to return to fundamentalism, and to question its motives would be non-neutral. If you disagree, I encourage you to bring the issue to the article talk page, where it can be discussed and consensus may be reached. Thank You. Rutebega (talk) 04:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guin Tornado Valueable information

Can't firsthand witness accounts and pictures count as a reliable source? This was from an actual documentary by ABC/3340. This is the only known film containing accounts and damage pics. Finding information about the Guin tornado has been a huge struggle in the weather community in finding a way to cite this would be great. In fact, many of the tornado pages are based on pictures and historical accounts. Sharkguy05 (talk) 04:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)Sharkguy05[reply]

Your citation of a youtube video in the edit was the reason for reversion. A documentary film by ABC is a perfectly reliable source as far as I'm concerned, but I didn't go and watch the video so I didn't know what it was. If you're going to cite a documentary, you should use Template:Cite_AV_media. Thanks. Rutebega (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

cheers

thanks for clarifying re the papua stub - I will not go any further now the refs are there - Satu Suro 04:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. AsianGeographer's English clearly isn't the best, and he's created quite a few articles today, but he certainly means well. I'm also not sure how completely he understands RS policy, considering he waited until after the deletion nom to add a ref, but I'm sure he'll learn with time. Anyway, keep up the good work. Rutebega (talk) 04:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed provinces of Indonesia

You helped with references at Central Papua Province, maybe you can also help at Proposed provinces of Indonesia? AsianGeographer (talk) 07:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Killer toys

Hello, regarding the article killer toys, I have overhauled it and have provided a more limited list with all entries backed by reliable sources. I've commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Killer toys. I hope you will take a look at the new list and my comment. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing! Erik (talk | contribs) 14:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cat Improve

You added Cat improve to 2009–10 Albion Rovers F.C. season, its not a valid tag as the two cats its in are the only ones it should be in. They are subcats of the only other cats that are even remotely appropriate.Blethering Scot 19:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware of consensus regarding categorizing articles in both more general cats and their subcats. I can't find anything in the category-related guidelines, so I'd appreciate if you could explain for future reference why it would be unhelpful to, for example, categorize 2009–10 Albion Rovers F.C. season as Football in Scotland. In any case, I don't know that much about categories, and assumed that more than two would have been applicable; I'll be more careful in the future. Thanks for the message. Rutebega (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SUBCAT gives more info. The others categories that it could of been put in would be Category:Albion Rovers F.C. but Category:Albion Rovers F.C. seasons is a subcat of that so we dont need both. Or Category:Association football clubs 2009–10 season and Category:2009–10 in Scottish football again though Category:Scottish football clubs 2009–10 season is the sub cat. You can rule out the European football cats as they didn't play in it and there aren't really any other applicable ones. Its common for there to be only two or three cats max on season articles. For instance you will see 2012–13 Manchester United F.C. season has three cats with the extra being the European football one. Whilst in general most articles will have far more cats we only need the subcat from the applicable category tree. Im not the best at explaining but have a read of the cat page if you haven't already, whilst its not unhelpful to cat improve articles as it means someone who knows the subject better can assess in this case there arent any more. I just wanted to point it out sorry if it was a bit pointy.Blethering Scot 20:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that clarifies things. I just wanted to know what was unconstructive about my edit so I can avoid making the same mistake in the future, and I appreciate you letting me know you reverted it and responding to my question. Thanks again. Rutebega (talk) 23:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

cyanide & happiness

oops didn't see you were copyediting Cyanide & Happiness. I put up the GOCEinuse flag. Please carry on! :) AngusWOOF (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, by all means continue; I don't feel the will to make any further edits to the page, so consider it yours to copyedit to your liking. Rutebega (talk) 21:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have reorganized the article and added some more references as well. AngusWOOF (talk) 03:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Koekjes

Stalwart111 has given you some Nice Koekjes which promote fellowship, goodwill and WikiLove. Hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the good flavor of Nice Koekjes around Wiki World by giving someone else one. Maybe to a friend or, better yet, to someone you have had disagreements with in the past. Nice Koekjes are very tasty and have been known to be so NICE, they will even bake themselves. Enjoy!

Counterproductive

This is about the worst way to try to remove possible privacy violation / outing information. Too many veteran editors watch diffs carefully, as evidenced by the revert of your attempted ANI refactor. This, of course, is going to big orange banner the user's interface guaranteeing attention. If you see outing stuff Wikipedia:Requests_for_oversight is the best and only way to deal with it -- say nothing on-wiki until the material has been oversighted. I've made maybe ten oversight requests in my years here -- they get dealt with fairly quickly, usually an hour or two and always less than 24. In this particular case, given the content has been bandied about ANI for a couple days now, it's probably just beyond oversight. NE Ent 12:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I hadn't considered that MarioNovi would be alerted of the edit to his talk page. I did make an RfO, but just found out this morning that it was denied by Someguy1221. If you think it should have been oversighted, you can take it up with him. I'm not experienced in these matters, and followed the instructions on the RfO page to remove the outing content. In your opinion, what would have been the best way to handle the comments (under the assumption that they would have been suppressed, which I fully expected at the time)? Should I have left the AN/I thread alone since it was already closed and probably watched by dozens of people? Should I have completely ignored the RfO suggestion of removing the content? I'd just like to know specifically what I could have done better, granted that I'll likely not have to deal with something like this frequently (if ever) in the future. In any case, if it's not going to be oversighted, I'm not going to do anything more about it either way. Wwwhatsup doesn't seem to really care, and it's certainly no skin off my nose. Thanks for the comment. —Rutebega (talk) 18:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not following the RfO suggestion of removing the content? I've always just said absolutely nothing on-wiki and filled out the form at Special:EmailUser/Oversight. NE Ent 18:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the advice. I think I'll just choose to read "but only if it will not draw undue attention" as "but only if nobody would ever notice". I thought I was doing a good thing at the time, so this debacle is both unexpected and unpleasant, but I'd rather not ever make the same mistake. Again, appreciate your advice on this. —Rutebega (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a good question, I've asked at the talk page. Don't worry about making mistakes, we've got a bold pillar around here. NE Ent 20:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Editor review/Rutebega

Hey, just thought I'd let you know that I've completed an editor review for you.

Take care. =) Kurtis ^(talk) 02:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response to your lecturing and insults

I didn't have a chance to respond to your comments at the ANI, it was closed before I noticed your comments. But I added my response there anyway, so if you feel so inclined, please take a look. (You may not realize it, but your treating me like a naughty child, and of showing disrespect for encyclopedia-building, was offensive. Your perception of "inexplicable incivility" is also unaccountable, since the facts are plain what lead to my incivil comments at the User's talk, there is no secret to make things "inexplicable" to anyone, and that is an irresponsible comment about my character (i.e., that my behavior is "inexplicable", therefore unpredictable, as though I was some sort of crazy). I see on your User page you hold yourself to be "always civil". So I'm wondering how it is, that you have pissed me off royally, with your unfounded and irresponsible comments. (Not all of them, mind you, just the ones I've spelled out here and at the thread.) You're 1+ years editor, yet you take a "I know better than you, here, let me lecture you" attitude, and that causes me to wonder a few things: 1) What good does any of that do (you're telling me something I already know, and I'm sure that User:Forgot already knows, and, User:Forgot gave no indication he would change any of his behaviors, did he?) 2) How is it that you consider yourself as civil as you do, yet, you've pissed me off royally, with your irresponsible comments, such as insinuating that I don't show proper respect to encyclopedia building, and that I have a "bad attitude"?? 3) Please explain to me, at an *Administrator's* Notice board, how it makes sense that you go there and start to hand out admonishments and advices?? (Please don't respond by telling he "anyone can contribute at an ANI". If that's the case, it shouldn't be. But I already know that ANI is an irresponsible cesspool. It seems to me there were two Administrators there already that addressed issues, then you felt you had to come along and pontificate, admonish, and accuse me of bad attitude, and not showing respect to encyclopedia-building. All pompous offensiveness from you. And, you deem yourself civil? Giving unwanted, unhelpful lectures? Treating me like a naughty child? All with your 1+ years experience?)

I would say that your slight of me, of not having or showing respect to encyclopedia-building, was most offensive of all. I can forgive your self-centeredness to hear yourself lecture others at ANI, that is just simple vanity. But to attack my serious editor status with your unfair and untruthful insult, is something that has gotten under my skin. And I'm glad you know that now, thanks for reading this.

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. I do want to compliment you though, for seeing that the base problem was the editor's poor understanding of policy. (But that does raise a Q: He is aware, and I believe understands, policy. He just chooses to ignore it, and has explained and admitted same. And he did not offer to change in any way. What portends the future of that?) Anyway, thanks. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to put name made some mistakes. He was wrong about policy. He edit warred. He didn't use the talk page, and didn't think he needed to. He's been here two months. Too often I see people treating unconstructive edits like crimes against humanity. No matter what a user does, if they do it because they wish to improve an article, then you shouldn't get too upset at them (until it becomes a WP:COMPETENCE issue). All you can do is try to correct the behavior, because there is a will to build an encyclopedia, and that will should be fostered. Now, I'm not asking you to adopt Forgot, but it's bad for the project to be too impatient with new editors (see WP:BITE). When I said you should respect "that", I was referring to the importance of editor retention over merely reverting bad edits, not insinuating that you were WP:NOTHERE (on the contrary, you seem entirely well intentioned). Of course, I understand losing your temper. It happens to lots of people, and it's even happened to me once or twice. If you do lose your temper though, the best thing to do is just to step away from the issue, and let other editors handle it for a while. And when I said "inexplicable," what I meant was that I didn't think Forgot had done anything so bad to warrant such diatribes from you, which, considering his edits were in good faith, if misguided, he hadn't. In any case, assuming good faith is essential on wikipedia, especially with new users. That's why I wasn't too hard on Forgot, because I know he's still learning. If he repeats the same mistakes though, he will find far less clemency from me.

You have said (several times) that I am treating you like a naughty child. I have treated you with the civility you deserve, and have reminded you to extend the same courtesy to others. I have given you advice on how to improve as an editor and avoid being blocked in the future. You don't have to follow that advice if you think it's worthless; I don't go to AN/I to issue orders and commands. However, you will inevitably be criticized on wikipedia, and will usually receive some advice at the same time. Following that advice is the best way to avoid trouble in the future. I have shared with you how I think you can become a better editor, and it's up to you to decide how you're going to respond. If you have any critiques of my editing, then I'm open to discussing them in a calm and civil manner. Oh, and by the way, I never meant to upset or insult you. If you felt stung by my comments, then I apologize, but they were not meant to attack you, only to counsel you and resolve the issue at hand.

You'll agree, I think, that the content dispute is long over. NE Ent proposed the obvious solution and nobody seems to disagree. What's best now, is to completely drop the issue. I've never been the subject of an AN/I thread myself, but I'm sure it must be extremely unpleasant, and if I were you, I'd try to move on and forget this ever happened. Don't hold a grudge against Forgot to put name, or myself, and keep making constructive edits. Wherever another editor has made a comment about you, look carefully to see if you can learn from the criticism, and if you can't, then just ignore it and forget it. Don't let this incident hold you back from being an excellent editor, and if you cross paths with Forgot in the future (I suspect you will), assume good faith. Cheers. —Rutebega (talk) 01:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism in the Kochi article

I had made cleanups and removed some irrelevant information from Kochi page. My posts were removed and I was warned of vandalism. That guy User:Prathambhu doesn't know what vandalism means. That guy doesn't know GCDA means what the UA means. I had noticed your comment on the issue at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

To quote the first paragraph :

"The city of Kochi (pop. 601,574) is the most densely populated city in the state and is part of an extended metropolitan region (pop. 2.1 million), which is the largest urban agglomeration in Kerala. Kochi city is also a part of Greater Cochin region[6][7] and is classified as a B-1 grade city[8] by the Government of India, making it the highest graded city in the state".

I had also checked the discussions Talk:Kochi, India and found that the consensus was that the article is about the city not the UA. From this it is pretty clear that the article is about the Kochi and not about the Kochi UA or the metropolitan area. Some of the information added in the page are for the UA of Kochi, and should be entered in the Kochi metropolitan area. Quoting from the page Kochi metropolitan area,

"This article is about the urban agglomeration of Kochi. For the city of Kochi, see Kochi ". And again,

"The Urban Agglomeration (UA) of Kochi (Malayalam: കൊച്ചി [Kocci]; formerly known as Cochin) is a part of the Greater Cochin region and the largest urban agglomeration in the Indian state of Kerala."

So I hope it might be clear to you by now, which is the page on the Urban Agglomeration and which is the page on the city. I merely removed these irrelevant information's from the page. Aluva is a separate municipality from Kochi and a part of the metropolitan area but it is not part of the Kochi city which has a population of 601,574. So please allow me to remove these irrelevant information from the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.68.91.114 (talk) 04:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

...to the Teahouse, Rutebega! Glad to have you aboard. - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 03:23, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE January barnstars

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to Rutebega for copy editing articles totalling over 12,000 words in the GOCE January copy edit drive. Thank you very much for participating! Dianna (talk) 22:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		Leaderboard Award—5K articles—5th Place (tied)
		This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Rutebega for copy editing one article of 5,000 words or more during the GOCE January copy edit drive. Your contributions are much appreciated! Dianna (talk) 22:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of User:Ferry Lane Estate Wildlife/sandbox

copied from Wikipedia talk:Editor review/Rutebega —Rutebega (talk)

Dear Rutebega

Unfortunately you have added a warning notice of deletion on my Wikipedia page AT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ferry_Lane_Estate_Wildlife/sandbox

I really can't understand why. The page is dedicated to botanical species found. All entries have been substantiated/verified by a botanist of note. Could you please explain why I'm receiving the warning please, as I don't understand at all.

Many thanks 80.194.239.249 (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated the article for deletion deletion because it does not conform to Wikipedia's User page guidelines. Furthermore, if it had been created in article space, it would have been deleted as a non-notable list. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If you believe that the page should not be deleted, then feel free to comment in the page's deletion discussion. Thank you. —Rutebega (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your request for rollback

Hi Rutebega/Archive 2. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
Rollback should never be used to edit war.
If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

erase personal information

Hi Rutebega, I would like to erase my name from the xCard. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VCard Thank you. S — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.206.102.219 (talk) 01:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the information from the article and made a case for it not to be added again. However, it is still visible in the article's history, should anyone desire to look for it. If you wish, it is possible for the information to be completely expunged from public view, and if you would like that I can request it on your behalf. Thank you for bringing this to my attention, and if you have any further questions or concerns, don't hesitate to contact me here. —Rutebega (talk) 02:41, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editing my comment on WP:AN

Why did you edit my comment on WP:AN? Prodego ^talk 04:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had assumed you wanted to use the

Done template and merely made a mistake. I guess that was presumptuous of me, so you have my apologies. —Rutebega (talk) 14:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be pretty strange to accidentally type tl|, though stranger things have happened. FWIW the reason I used tl is because {{done}} uses an image, and including large numbers of images on a page will slow the load time. It is a pretty small effect, but for big pages like the AN archives perhaps noticeable. Prodego ^talk 16:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't thought of that; good to know. Thanks for the message. —Rutebega (talk) 17:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats... You gave an awesome answer in the Teahouse!

This badge is supposed to be for one particular great answer, but you've given a whole handful of them lately. Thanks for taking the time to clearly and patiently reply to guests. You really set a welcoming and helpful tone at the Teahouse. Best,

	Great Answer Badge
	Awarded to those who have given a great answer on the Teahouse Question Forum. A good answer is one that fits in with the Teahouse expectations of proper conduct: polite, patient, simple, relies on explanations not links, and leaves a talkback notification. Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges

Ocaasi^{t | c} 02:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EditorReviewArchiver: Automatic processing of your editor review

This is an automated message. Your editor review is scheduled to be closed on 10 February 2013 because it will have been open for more than 30 days and inactive for more than 7 days. You can keep it open longer by posting a comment to the review page requesting more input. Adding  to the review page will prevent further automated actions. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Tea Leaf - Issue Seven

Hello again! We have some neat updates about the Teahouse:

We’ve added badges! Teahouse awards is a pilot project to learn how acknowledgement impacts engagement and retention in Teahouse and Wikipedia.

We’ve got a new WikiLove Badge script that makes giving badges quick and easy. Add it here. You can give out badges to thank helpful hosts, welcome guests, acknowledge great questions and more.

Come join the experiment and let us know what you think!

And...for all of your great work and all of the progress that you've helped the Teahouse make, we hereby award you the Host Badge:

Teahouse Host Badge

Awarded to hosts at the Wikipedia Teahouse.

Experienced editors with this badge have committed to welcoming guests, helping new editors, and upholding the standards of the Teahouse by giving friendly and patient guidance—at least for a time.

Hosts illuminate the path for new Wikipedians, like Tōrō in a Teahouse garden.

Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges

You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here

Thanks again! Ocaasi 02:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Rutebega. You have new messages at Hasteur's talk page.
Message added 02:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hasteur (talk) 02:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes

Hi Rutebega - could you let me know why you accepted this edit at Richard Wisker? The continuous addition of an unsourced birth date was one of the main reasons pending changes was added to the article. Edits that add unsourced personal info should not be accepted in BLPs.--Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 18:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ponyo, sorry; I guess that one just slipped through. I try to be careful with BLPs but I guess I didn't notice that this was unsourced BLP content, and I didn't know the page's history. I do appreciate you notifying me, as otherwise I doubt I'd have realized I'd made a mistake. I'll be sure to be aware when I'm reviewing BLPs from now on. Thanks again. —Rutebega (talk) 19:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying; it looked pretty clear cut for rejection, but I'm hardly infallible myself and thought perhaps I had missed something. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 19:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ferry Lane Estate Wildlife/sandbox

Relisting doesn't really happen at MfD (in fact, I don't think I've ever seen it). MfDs are occasionally left open for well over the usual seven days, but they tend not to attract any additional attention. MfD is just generally pretty poorly travelled. Of course, I'm not sure it all that legitimate for me to say "well, that's not what's generally done there" when I'm probably closing half the MfDs these days. But one or two !votes is pretty typical (even zero is pretty common), and rampant relisting just doesn't seem worthwhile when most closes on zero, one, or two votes leave everybody reasonably content, and leaving those discussions open longer doesn't attract additional attention. MfD just ain't glamourous like AfD. :( If you want to renominate the page in hopes of a bigger discussion, go ahead, but I don't think it's worthwhile to start relisting the ~half of MfDs that attract two comments or less as a general principle. Wily D 08:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm not really too familiar with MfD. In this case, I'm inclined to just cease caring about deleting the page, unless it reaches the point that it's a stale draft. The reader isn't going to see it, so it won't greatly affect the encyclopedia. Thanks for responding. —Rutebega (talk) 15:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

Hi Rutebega. I see at ANI that you laid a lot of templates on 37.130.248.34 regarding the John Laing plc article. The problem with doing it that way is that the material presents as a wall of text that the editor is unlikely to read or understand. What works better in a case like that one is to use a personal note that covers all the points you want to present without overwhelming the person with too much information. What I do is choose a prepared message from my sub-pages; there's several useful ones that can be customised to meet the needs of the individual case. Please feel free to use any of these canned messages in cases like this in the future.

Best, -- Dianna (talk) 03:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dianna, thanks for the message. I've just collapsed all those warnings on the user's talk page, and clarified that they should all be considered a single warning, that good faith was assumed, and that things worked themselves out in the end. Using templates is easy and quick, but clearly isn't always the best way to solve problems with editors. Cheers, Rutebega (talk) 04:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rutebega! The advantage of these canned messages is it's almost as quick and easy as using templates, and the recipient will never know you didn't write it just for them, he he. See you around, -- Dianna (talk) 15:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Teahouse Turns One!

It's been an exciting year for the Teahouse and you were a part of it. Thanks so much for visiting, asking questions, sharing answers, being friendly and helpful, and just keeping Teahouse an awesome place. You can read more about the impact we're having and the reflections of other guests and hosts like you. Please come by the Teahouse to celebrate with us, and enjoy this sparkly cupcake badge as our way of saying thank you. And, Happy Birthday!

	Teahouse First Birthday Badge
	Awarded to everyone who participated in the Wikipedia Teahouse during its first year! To celebrate the many hosts and guests we've met and the nearly 2000 questions asked and answered during this excellent first year, we're giving out this tasty cupcake badge. Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges

--Ocaasi and the rest of the Teahouse Team 22:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We'd like your opinion

A question for people who commented in the RfC at "Probationary Period" and "Not Unless". (Or feel free to reply on my talk page, if you prefer.) - Dank (push to talk) 19:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Project for RfA nominators

As one of the supporters of the proposal in the 2013 RfC on RfA reform, you are invited to join the new WikiProject for RfA nominators. Please come and help shape this initiative. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 18:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kamarupi Prakrit

Please consider relisting Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Kamarupi_Prakrit_and_user_User:Bhaskarbhagawati. Look at the talk page Talk:Kamarupi Prakrit and see for yourself that discussions with User:Bhaskarbhagawati does not go anywhere, even with the help of a third party and he does no at all make meaningful discussions, and trying the regular route will mean I shall be tied up for more than half a year fighting to insert one sentence. Chaipau (talk) 19:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is your responsibility to make a concerted effort. If you're not familiar with it, WP:DR would be a most relevant policy. If you really can't reach consensus, there are other forums by which you can probably find a solution. AN/I however, will probably only add unnecessary drama to the situation.

Trust me though, it shouldn't be too difficult to get to the bottom of this, and policy is on your side. As a matter of fact, another editor has already begun a thread about this, so you should probably expect to see discussion there. —Rutebega (talk) 19:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Yes, I am glad someone else noticed it. I shall follow it up in the talk page. Last year I spent a full 4 months disputing a nonsensical sentence, via WP:O3, WP:DR and WP:RS. Chaipau (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How can we implement the policy WP:DISPUTED policy that you have referred to? Chaipau (talk) 22:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, WP:DISPUTED does not relate to the issue at hand, and I never referred to it. Did you mean WP:DISPUTE? —Rutebega (talk) 22:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To my mind it does. A sentence is in dispute. Does the disputing editor place a tag, or does he delete the sentence? Especially, if a reference with a page number already exists? What is the standard that should be met here? Chaipau (talk) 22:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see what you mean. If an editor sees an unsourced statement that is verifiably false, she should remove it and replace it with the correct information and reference. If it has a reference but other sources contradict it, then a ^{[dubious – discuss]} tag should be added and a discussion opened. If the statement has a source and no source is found to contradict it, but the editor read somewhere/has a feeling/just knows that the information is false, she can begin a discussion on the talk page. That's how I think such things should be handled, and others may have slightly varying readings of policy, but it makes sense to me. —Rutebega (talk) 22:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, precisely. But do bear witness to the fun now, as the discussion meanders into inanities and ludicrousness. Look at Talk:Kamarupi Prakrit itself for past disputes. Unlike what you think, user:BB is not too interested in dispute resolutions, but just disputes (diff). I am afraid engaging with him in the past has been "trollfeeding" (diff). You would probably see now why I jumped straight to WP:ANI. Chaipau (talk) 22:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rutebega ! While we are simply waiting for full quote to support the sentence (The main characteristic of this Prakrit is the replacement of ś (শ) and ṣ (ষ) by s (স)), other previously engaged user given unilateral consensus and issued some threat like warning to resolve the issue. Thus ending dispute resolution attempt in article's talk page without any convincing argument. Thanks ! भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 16:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ! Thanks for your kind inputs. I also like to draw attention to fact that when user Aeusoes1 reverted, its edit summary says fuller revert of BB's edit; several editors have verified citation which shows that he either not or bother to know the exact dispute and its coverage by that snippet view. Anyway i am waiting for full quote as user Chaipau cited that book in other atleast dozen of articles with different page numbers which i hope is not from his memory hole. Thank You for everything. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 00:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please look at the discussion and make some comments. This discussion is going nowhere, and repeating standard topics ad infinitum tires one out. We seriously need a new pair of eyes to show us a way out of this quagmire. Chaipau (talk) 17:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rutebega, we moved your Teahouse host profile

Hello Rutebega! Thank you for being a host at the Teahouse. However, we haven't heard from you lately, so our bot has moved your Host profile from the host landing page to the host breakroom. No worries; you can always just Check in and our bot will move your profile back. Editing any Teahouse-related page will do the same thing for you. If you would prefer not to receive reminders like this, you can unsubscribe here. Thanks for your help at the Teahouse! HostBot (talk) 03:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Abdi deletion request

Hi Jim I noticed you have been editing me on Wikipedia along with others, whom I dont know know. Can you please delete my information as it is not accurate. I would also appreciate it in future that you contact me and ask me. if you need to contact me, you can email me princeabdi@comedycafe.co.uk Kind Regards Prince Abdi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.123.122.242 (talk) 13:20, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IRC office hours for wiki-mentors and Snuggle users

Hi. We're organizing an office hours session with the Teahouse to bring in mentors from across the wiki to try out Snuggle and discuss it's potential to support mentorship broadly. The Snuggle team would appreciate it if you would come and participate in the discussion. We'll be having it in #wikimedia-office ^connect on Wed. July 17th @ 1600 UTC. See the agenda for more info. --EpochFail^{(talk • work)}, Technical 13 (talk), TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:45, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Editor review#RfC: Should we mark WP:ER as historical?

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Editor review#RfC: Should we mark WP:ER as historical?. As you participated in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Editor review (2nd nomination) last year, you may be interested in the current RfC discussing closing and marking ER as historical. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

==

Hello, Rutebega. You have new messages at Nicholas carlough's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

==

Hello, Rutebega. You have new messages at Nicholas carlough's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Agriculture

I have opened a section on the talk page for further discussion on this issue and have stated my opinions on the matter (that farming is appropriate and husbandry is not) please seek other editors for a consensus before any more material is changed or inserted. SPACKlick (talk) 11:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jack & Jack

Hello,

I am here to speak about the BLP tag and POV tag you added in September. I've added references and sources to content that was available on the Internet. I wanted to ask you to review it then remove the tags if it is possible.

If I am contacting the wrong person, then let me know and please indicate whom I should contact. Callmemirela (talk) 23:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —Rutebega (talk) 07:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Rutebega. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey

Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 01:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Citation

I recently added a bit to the page of Stuart Pearce's page. As a niece with his given permission, do I still need a citation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by VLAS4 (talk • contribs) 08:32, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@VLAS4: In a word, yes! On Wikipedia, articles about living people are considered especially sensitive and have to follow stringent rules. In general, they are the same rules that apply to all articles, but they are very strictly enforced because these articles can easily affect people's real lives. One of our most important policies is "Verifiability", which means that anyone reading an article can see where the information comes from, and check for themselves that it's accurate and comes from a reliable source. In the same vein, we also have a policy against original research, meaning that even if you know something is true, you can't add it to a Wikipedia article unless a reliable, third-party source can verify it. That can seem like a frustrating obstacle to improving Wikipedia, but it's an important safeguard against potentially harmful misinformation. After all, most of us wouldn't want strangers writing things that weren't true in articles about ourselves!

If you'd like to learn more about editing Wikipedia, you can start with the official guide or ask a question at the Teahouse. Welcome to the Wikipedia community; I hope you find it engaging, exciting, and educational. I know I do! And if you need anything, my talk page is always open. Happy editing! —Rutebega (talk) 09:19, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Rutebega. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Rutebega. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]