Jump to content

User talk:Mr. Stradivarius: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 559: Line 559:


Hi [[User:Mr. Stradivarius]]. I am coming to your talk page as I note you signed the [[User:ThatPeskyCommoner/The Autie Pact|The Autie Pact]] back in 2012. I am a non-[[neurotypical]] who lives with [[Autism]] in the form of [[Asperger Syndrome]]. If you know much about those of us on the Spectrum as well as Wikipedia editors on the Spectrum, you probably understand that editing and communication can be difficult enough for neurotypicals, excruciatingly difficult at times for editors like me with Autism. I am here on your talk page not because I am asking you to intervene, I am not canvassing for support, I am not here because you are an administrator. I am here because you signed the Autie Pact that is meant to be a way to move toward bridging the gap between neurotypical editors and editors with Autism Spectrum Disorder(s). Currently, there has been a discussion for a few days at AN/I regarding my ability to edit. I have been open there about being a person with Asperger's. When that information was brought forth, the reactions have been -- shall we say -- less than complimentary to those expressing their views about editors with Autism. This discussion and the comments from long-time and not-so-long-time editors is, in my opinion, an example of how far we still have to go in Wikipedia toward understanding that we are made up of editors with different editing styles and different ways of seeing the world. Of course, the difference in editors with Autism is more obvious and can be, at times, more maddening to neurotypicals. That said, with the rate of autism being somewhere between 1:55 - 1:110 and Wikipedia being a magnet for those with ASDs, I think it's fair to say that awareness is extremely important. Also important to remember is that discrimination against editors because they have ASDs is just not appropriate nor does it echo [[WP:AGF]]. If you are interested in seeing the thread at AN/I I am referring to, the link is here [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Topic_ban]. I have no expectation that you will look at it, my purpose here is really just awareness that Wikipedia still has a long way to go in the way of interactions and understanding between autism-spectrum editors and neurotypical editors. And, as the title of this section says, your advice would be welcome. Thanks for your time. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">[[User:Winkelvi|WV]]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">[[User_talk:Winkelvi|✉]] [[Special:Contributions/Winkelvi|✓]]</span> 16:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi [[User:Mr. Stradivarius]]. I am coming to your talk page as I note you signed the [[User:ThatPeskyCommoner/The Autie Pact|The Autie Pact]] back in 2012. I am a non-[[neurotypical]] who lives with [[Autism]] in the form of [[Asperger Syndrome]]. If you know much about those of us on the Spectrum as well as Wikipedia editors on the Spectrum, you probably understand that editing and communication can be difficult enough for neurotypicals, excruciatingly difficult at times for editors like me with Autism. I am here on your talk page not because I am asking you to intervene, I am not canvassing for support, I am not here because you are an administrator. I am here because you signed the Autie Pact that is meant to be a way to move toward bridging the gap between neurotypical editors and editors with Autism Spectrum Disorder(s). Currently, there has been a discussion for a few days at AN/I regarding my ability to edit. I have been open there about being a person with Asperger's. When that information was brought forth, the reactions have been -- shall we say -- less than complimentary to those expressing their views about editors with Autism. This discussion and the comments from long-time and not-so-long-time editors is, in my opinion, an example of how far we still have to go in Wikipedia toward understanding that we are made up of editors with different editing styles and different ways of seeing the world. Of course, the difference in editors with Autism is more obvious and can be, at times, more maddening to neurotypicals. That said, with the rate of autism being somewhere between 1:55 - 1:110 and Wikipedia being a magnet for those with ASDs, I think it's fair to say that awareness is extremely important. Also important to remember is that discrimination against editors because they have ASDs is just not appropriate nor does it echo [[WP:AGF]]. If you are interested in seeing the thread at AN/I I am referring to, the link is here [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Topic_ban]. I have no expectation that you will look at it, my purpose here is really just awareness that Wikipedia still has a long way to go in the way of interactions and understanding between autism-spectrum editors and neurotypical editors. And, as the title of this section says, your advice would be welcome. Thanks for your time. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">[[User:Winkelvi|WV]]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">[[User_talk:Winkelvi|✉]] [[Special:Contributions/Winkelvi|✓]]</span> 16:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
:{{ping|Winkelvi}} Hi! I agree that Wikipedia would be a nicer place to be if neurotypical editors had more awareness of what it's like to be on the Autism spectrum. Unfortunately, I don't think I'll have time to comment at ANI today. I'm just putting some finishing touches to [[Module:Article history]] before I go to bed, and I will be busy tomorrow. If I have time tomorrow evening, then I will look at the thread and maybe comment there. Best regards — '''''[[User:Mr. Stradivarius|<span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr.&nbsp;Stradivarius</span>]]''''' <sup>[[User talk:Mr. Stradivarius|♪&nbsp;talk&nbsp;♪]]</sup> 16:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:47, 13 January 2015

Welcome to my talk page! Pull up a chair, and feel free to ask me anything.

Template:User talk disclaimer

thank you for your welcome message

thanks - that sort of thing is helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChemicalG (talk • contribs) 00:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2014-51

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent software changes

  • You may see a new tool tested on the mobile site of the English Wikipedia. It asks simple questions to make the article better. In the future, your answers will go to Wikidata. [1]
  • You can watch a video to learn how to use Phabricator to manage projects. [2]
  • You can test a new version of the Content Translation tool.

Software changes this week

  • The new version of MediaWiki (1.25wmf12) has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since December 10. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from December 16. It will be on all Wikipedias from December 17 (calendar). [3]
  • You can now find and replace text in VisualEditor. You can open the tool via the menu, Ctrl+F or Cmd+F. [4]
  • VisualEditor now doesn't change the space at the end of a text that you make bold. [5]
  • The "Apply changes" button in the reference window of VisualEditor is now disabled until you make a change. [6]

Future changes

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

16:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

ResellerRatings

Discussion moved to Talk:ResellerRatings#Protected edit request on 18 December 2014. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 04:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 December 2014

NotTechimo / ResellerRatings

Hi @Mr. Stradivarius: It looks like the guy (or one of his friends, as 166.171.187.18) is back and edited my comments on the ResellerRatings talk page. Can you please revert his edit there and is there a way to semi protect the talk page so IP's can't edit? Thanks. Techimo (talk) 18:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr. Stradivarius: As you can see from the ResellerRatings talk history today, the single-purpose IP vandalism continues. One IP was blocked, but the same edit warring vandal is back (and reverted more edits on the talk page) under a dynamic ATT wireless IP, which is a single-purpose sock puppet account. Is it possible to indefinitely semi-protect this talk page? Thanks.

@Techimo: It looks like the page has already been protected. By the way, I want to echo Callanec's warning about posting personal information - Wikipedia's outing policy doesn't leave much room for interpretation, and if you keep breaking it you will end up being blocked, regardless of any merit your complaints might have. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 05:15, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr. Stradivarius: Thanks. Yes, I wasn't aware of the policy. After the warning I have not reposted the info (though some was reposted by an admin who reverted an edit). I will respect the policy. Techimo (talk) 05:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy!

Happy Holiday Cheer
Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user an Awesome Holiday and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings! Joys! Paine

Thank you Paine! — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 15:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasure! – Paine 

Hi.

I've been meaning to simplify the Template:Section link myself but always overwhelmingly higher priorities (external mostly) distracted me; and now, you've converted it to a Lua module and it is out of my reach. I've recently written my first Lua script AND put into production after extensive testing but I'm still too new for this. That's why I thought perhaps you might be willing to help in your free time, if you have any.

Currently, the syntax to create a sole section link within the same page is {{section link| |Section title |np=y}}. But I think it can be safely made to do same when {{section link|Section title}} is supplied. There are 21293 transclusions of this template but I bet none of them is using this syntax to refer to Notes section. Still, there are ways to ascertain and mitigate the issue before the deployment of the change, right?

What do you think?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 21:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Codename Lisa: Sounds like a good idea to me. Could you propose it on the template talk page, in case anyone else wants to comment? Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 04:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was in favor of bold action but alright. Discussion started. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... No replies yet. I think we must proceed per WP:SILENCE. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 05:35, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Harrasment from a user

Hi, I hope you could help me as I really need to sort it out ASAP; I created my account today and I've done a few edits to Jagged Edge (group), various Rihanna articles etc etc and the user Binksternet has accused not only me but another user called Stanlyfe of being a sock puppet of a user called MariaJaydHicky; they have not only reverted all my edits he has accused me of being that user and when I wrote back why are they doing that they reverted my edits and have got the pages I've edited protected under sock puppetry can you please get them blocked as I find their behaviour harrasing and downright out of order and I am afraid no matter what I'll edit they'll revert it can you please help me? Muicfantasy (talk) 21:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection on Battle of Chawinda

Who had requested it? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@OccultZone: Smsarmad. (talk page stalker) Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But there was only one offending user who was removing the maintenance templates only for making the statement look real. I am contacting you because even if I am going to make a edit request on the page, you or someone else will tell me to "find consensus" and this user is clearly trying to bludgeoning the process, he believes that removing {{failed verification}} is justified if URL exists in the given citation. Can you restore the pre-edit war version or simply unprotect because it is only one user, in last 48 hours who is edit warring. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@OccultZone: I think this is a case of WP:WRONGVERSION. Whichever the right version is, it is probably better found through discussion among the editors involved than through any unilateral decision by me. I would wait for the RfC to conclude before changing anything there - if you want your edits there to stick around, you will need a consensus for them. That said, if you think any other users are bludgeoning the process, I would be happy to look at evidence in the form of diffs and links. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 03:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So I can open a edit request and inform other editors about it? Before reporting about the bludgeoning, I would probably give another chance. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@OccultZone: You can start a discussion about it, but an edit request would need to have consensus first - see WP:Edit requests. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 03:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You had told that if the user is bludgeoning the process, I can report here. Here it is:- [11] [12]
Both diffs are at least 90% same(copy-paste) to each other, previous once include the false allegations of personal attacks when I have made none. In second diff he is actually saying that he "will repeat it" the same analysis that has been already debunked. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You had viewed the above evidence? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@OccultZone: Sorry, I was busy doing this. I think I should read through the talk page properly before commenting, so give me a little time. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 15:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@OccultZone: Well, I didn't read the whole thing, but I read enough of it to see that people on all sides of the debate are getting frayed tempers. I'm seeing friction between you and TopGun as well as between you and Nawabmalhi, and a few others as well. I think the best thing to do now would be to take a break from the article while the RfC is playing out. Once it's finished and there's a consensus about the infobox question, that will be a much better time to get back into editing the article. At the moment, arguing about details isn't really helping with the main issue, and it's getting everyone on edge as well. The alternative to sitting out the RfC would be to take this to ANI, and that probably won't end well. You'd do much better trying to make peace with everyone. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 16:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hop in, I just wanted to clarify: the only reason I copied and pasted into the other section because OccultZone was repeating the same argument and just created another section to do it. I specifically wrote that I was doing this as a formality and this was already discussed in detail above and did not want to indicate that I was ignoring him or that I felt that his maintenance template sugestions, in my view, were correct. It is just that I always thought it Wiki ettiquete to reply even though the points raised are repetitive assuming Good Faith but he seems to like to assume Bad Faith to anything or any user he is disagrees with. --Thank You Nawabmalhi (talk) 19:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Stradivarius, have you also looked at their background? TopGun has been topic banned, TheSawtooth was indefinitely blocked for a while because he was pretending to be an admin, justice was blocked for edit warring. It tells that they are not enough capable to contribute along with other editors. This time it is Nawabmalhi who is fighting to misrepresent references(also policies), alleging of personal attacks and making a very unnecessary repetitive argument which do nothing except discourage editors from contributing. Also the edit warring he has done only for removing the issue tags. He already describes his disruptive actions as 'good faith' actions, how can he be tolerated? VandVictory (talk) 00:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have not made a single personal attack in any shape or form and this this clear on the Chawinda Talk Page. On the otherhand VandVictory has on anyone who supports the Pakistani Victory stance whether it is me or anyone else. He put Colapse Tag on what I had written on the Maintenance Tag effectively pretending to be an administrator by tampering with what I had written and constantly engaging in editwaring on the page. --Nawabmalhi (talk) 01:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can collapse unnecessary discussion. Where did I said that you have made personal attack? Accusing others of personal attacks is as disruptive. VandVictory (talk) 01:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Universidad Empresarial de Costa Rica on Wiki

For your information, Justlettersandnumber user mentioned you have been decived https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Universidad_Empresarial_de_Costa_Rica because he mentioned similar IP address, as for Montevideo Uruguay. Montevideo have 1,5 million citizens!! Also there is a local office for UNEM and a national website www.unem.edu.uy Over 300 students got their education at UNEM branch in Uruguay, so its unfair to mention IP address, since ALL citizens in Uruguay, over 3million people in all 19 states called DEPARTAMENTOS in spanish use the same IP address. Also Justlettersandnumbers user mention an old newspaper publication dated 2008 and for his information we are heading year 2015. I must underline, there are national branches in several countries, so as a student mentioned earlier, www.unem.cr is national based, mentime, www.unem.international is intended for worldwide users, and www.unem.edu.pl is where the first educational website was published and it reflects UNESCO whed listing.Furthermore Uruguay has its local website www.unem.edu.uy and also for your information in URUGUAY Universidad de la Republica UDELAR is the one that handles all dot EDU dot UY domains. I want o belive Justlettersandnumber user has no bad intentions, but only missinformation PolandMEC (talk) 03:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Merry

To you and yours

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bzuk: Thank you! Merry Christmas to you as well. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2014-52

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent software changes

  • The Technical Operations team is now using Phabricator to track their tasks. The Operations team manages the Wikimedia servers. In the future you will be able to see the tasks that are not private. [13]

Software changes this week

  • There will be no software changes this week and next week. This is because of the end-of-year holidays. The next update of MediaWiki will be on January 6. [14]

Future changes

  • The system that displays citations will change in the future. The new system will not change the style of citations. [15]
  • A new design for VisualEditor will come in January. You can try it now on test wikis. [16]

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

16:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Seasonal Greets!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello Mr. Stradivarius, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015.
Happy editing,
AmaryllisGardener talk 19:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Thank you AmaryllisGardener! Hope you have a wonderful Christmas and a Happy New Year too. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 08:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas & a big THANK YOU, too!

Happy Holidays!

Atsme☯Consult 02:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme: You're welcome. :) Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you too! — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 04:30, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

admin candidate

I think you are looking for admin candidates. Titodutta would make an excellent candidate. I've known him since he got started and have worked with him off wiki. He does work in spurts depending on real-life work and internet connection. An admin from India would be a definite plus. Bgwhite (talk) 08:22, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bgwhite: I could certainly look over his edits. But first, Titodutta, are you willing to run? Doing a proper review takes time, and it's no fun to do it only to find that the editor you're reviewing isn't interested in adminship. That goes doubly so when they have 70,000 edits. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 08:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tito just returned from Swatantra 2014 on Wikipedia's dime. I can't remember the name of the Wikipedia conference in India he recently attended. If he is "fleecing" money from Wikipedia, you know he can talk bull with the best admins :) Bgwhite (talk) 08:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it is not my decision. I'll leave it on @Moonriddengirl:, coach User:Moonriddengirl/Coaching. Note, MRG asked me to participate in DRN discussions, I have not got much time after that. --Tito☸Dutta 10:22, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Titodutta: That's very modest of you, but actually I need to hear it from you yourself. Are you interested in running for adminship in the near future? If so, I'll review your edits and let you know what I think (I usually do this privately by email). If not, then I'll wait until you're ready to run. All I want to know is that I won't waste my time looking through your edits if you're not willing to run - it doesn't have anything to do with whether I think you're ready. (In fact, everything that I've seen so far makes me think that you would be a very good candidate.) So, please let me know what you think, one way or the other. You can contact me by email if you prefer. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly not my decision. :) When you asked me for coaching, Titodutta, I did mention that I was delighted to help you prepare but might not be able to nominate you myself given my time constraints. Particularly because our work areas do not overlap, I don't have any special insight into what you're doing beyond what you've disclosed on that coaching page. I have no objection whatsoever to your accepting nomination from someone else and am quite certain that User:Mr. Stradivarius is an excellent person to evaluate you and determine if it's a good time. :) He's far more experience in WP:RFA than I am. If you choose to accept, I will wish you great luck! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:51, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox album

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Infobox album. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 December 2014

Happy Holidays!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello Mr. Stradivarius, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015.
Happy editing,
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} to all registered users whom have commented on his talk page. To prevent receiving future messages, please follow the opt-out instructions on User:Technical 13/Holiday list

Thank you! Hope you are having a great Christmas too. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 04:58, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mele Kalikimaka

Have a bright Hawaiian Christmas!--Mark Miller (talk) 16:46, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! We have snow here in Hokkaido so I don't think I could call it Hawaiian, but it certainly is bright. Merī Kurisumasu from Japan. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 05:06, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seasonal Greets!

Merry Christmas everybody!!!
Merry Christmas everybody!!!

"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,

I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."

Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)

 !dea4u  11:05, 26 December 2014 (UTC) is wishing you a Merry Christmas.[reply]

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.


Spread the cheer by adding {{Subst:Xmas4}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Thank you! Merry Christmas to you too. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 11:34, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ebola/west africa

sorry to bother you about this , but we requested semi protection very early on Saturday for ebola virus epidemic in west Africa and have gotten no response?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:49, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ozzie10aaaa: Sorry, I was in bed. Looks like Mr.Z-man has already dealt with this. In the future, if WP:RFPP is backlogged then WP:AN is probably the best place to ask people to deal with it. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 06:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mass disruption at the e-cig articles

The edit request protection did not involve removing "mist" from the lede.

  1. Remove (mist) from lede The proposal to remove "mist" from the lede was stricken. The closing of the RFC was to reduce mist not eliminate it. There was no discussion of a possible alternative wording in the lede for the word "mist". Some editors were disagreeing with using mist in the lede. I and others disagree with removing "mist" from the lede. There is no consensus to remove from the lede. Having the synonym mist in the lede only benefits the reader. See this diff.

You should be aware of this. There has been mass disruption. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#E-cig editors. QuackGuru (talk) 03:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@QuackGuru: Hi QuackGuru. I am aware that the lead alteration was struck from the edit request, but that does not mean that it was not discussed. I took the entirety of the discussion into account in my decision. And yes, I was aware of the ANI thread. I considered closing the section on the proposed topic ban on TheNorlo myself, but in the end I thought it would be better if another admin did it. Plus, there is a concerning shortage of experienced, uninvolved editors commenting there. As to the edit request, my reasoning went like this:
  • There was no consensus evident in the edit request discussion as to whether "mist" should appear in the lead.
  • Normally, WP:NOCONSENSUS directs us to stick with the status quo in discussions about article content.
  • However, in the RfC there was a consensus that "aerosol" and "vapour" should generally be preferred over "mist".
  • When discussing whether to use "mist" in e-cigarette articles, the more specific guidance in the RfC should be preferred over the advice in WP:NOCONSENSUS, as it represents a consensus as to what to do, whereas WP:NOCONSENSUS merely directs editors on what to when there is no consensus.
  • Therefore, the "no consensus" position on using "mist" in e-cigarette articles is to not use the word unless there is a consensus for it.
I hope this makes my position clearer. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 07:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a consensus to remove it from the lede and there was a previous consensus and compromise to include mist in the lede. Before mist was added to the lede there was a discussion. The latest discussion was for supporting mist in the lede. SPACKlick,[17] Doc James,[18] QuackGuru,[19] Tsavage,[20] and Formerly 98.[21] That is at least five editors supported keeping mist in the lede. See Talk:Electronic cigarette#Removal of Mist. I hope you realise that ""The word "mist" was present, and there needs to be a consensus to change it. In the absence of consensus policy is that the status quo prevails.". If you think there was no consensus please explain which editors specifically did not want mist in the lede. I also did not find any good reason for removing mist from the lede. Consensus is determined by the strength of the arguments. We are talking about including information in a page that may be of interest to the general reader. That is our primary mission as an encyclopedia. For example, there are synonyms for the word e-cigs in the lede. See "An electronic cigarette (e-cig or e-cigarette), personal vaporizer (PV) or electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS)...". The top three synonyms are "aerosol" and "vapour" and "mist" for the exhaled smoke-like mist. The agreement was that "aerosol" and "vapour" should generally be preferred over "mist". But the RFC also said Editors wish to reduce the use of "mist". Being generally preferred over "mist" does not mean eliminating mist entirely from the article. And the RFC was not specifically about removing the synonym mist from the lede. Editors made much stronger arguments for keeping mist in the lede.[22] QuackGuru (talk) 08:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@QuackGuru: Sorry for the delay in responding. I'd say that the fact that there was a previous consensus doesn't override the lack of consensus this time around (per WP:CCC). So I'm afraid that I won't be changing my mind about my decision just now. However, if you want to appeal it, you are welcome to do so at WP:AN. (And don't be put off by the "administrators'" in "administrators' noticeboard" - it is the normal place for admin decisions to be reviewed, and people there usually take those kinds of reviews seriously.) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 15:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MS, Just wanted to drop you a note to thank you for your efforts on the article and calming the edit warring over there. Seems like a lot of work, and fairly tedious work at that. Formerly 98 (talk) 14:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. :) I wasn't trying to mediate or anything, though - all I did was answer a couple of edit requests. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 06:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assyrian propaganda on Wikipedia

Is this the way how you handle problems on Wikipedia by simply closing the case without finding a compromise? What happens, if I put Aramean continuity related topics to the "Assyrian people" article and everything will be deleted or distorted by Assyrian fascists again, because they think they are the owner of this article? They even have a WikiProject called Assyria and don't care about neutrality and support Assyrianism. We are fed up that all our contributions on Wikpedia even with references are getting removed without a valid reason. Are you there to check it and undo it? This is why I was in favour for a neutral common page called Assyrian/Syriac people, Syriac people or whatever focused only on our Christian heritage, where we all agree on. What's wrong with the idea to create articles within a common page to express each groups views? The current Assyrian people article mixed up with Assyrian plus Aramean topics would led to edit wars again.

Read this Link and see how Assyrian fascists from all over the world try to Assyrianize everything on Wikipedia: http://www.assyrianvoice.net/forum/index.php?topic=16628.95;wap2 --Suryoyo124 (talk) 17:53, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Suryoyo124: The basic reason why we don't have separate pages is outlined at WP:POVFORK. I'm not saying that the Assyrian people page is perfect - by all means, it could use a lot of work - but now that the deletion review has closed as "endorse", it is going to be where the Syriac people redirect points. If you want to improve the Assyrian people page, please go ahead, by all means. And if you get in a content dispute about what the page should contain, you should use dispute resolution. (Also, the forum that you linked to is from January 2008 - a lot can change in almost 7 years.) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 06:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Syriac people should not be removed from Assyrian people, its the same people we cant have different articles about the same people --129.16.211.112 (talk) 17:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Interview (2014 film)

This article needs time extension on protection. There have been reverts on good-faith additions lately. Can you trust IPs on editing it? --George Ho (talk) 02:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho: This is probably better filed at WP:RFPP. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 06:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2015-01

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Software changes

  • There are no technical changes this week.

Feedback about Tech News in 2014

  • The writers of the technical newsletter are asking for your opinion. Did you get the information you wanted this year? Did we miss important technical news in 2014? What kind of information was too late? Please tell us at m:Talk:Tech/News. You can write in your language. Thank you!

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

16:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Nanking

For the article on the Battle of Nanking I was thinking about having the dispute on the talk page, concerning the appropriate range of estimates for the death toll of the Nanking Massacre, sent to the dispute resolution noticeboard. Do you think that this would be a good idea? If so, would you mind starting the process of setting this up because I've never done it myself.CurtisNaito (talk) 07:43, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@CurtisNaito: Ah, sorry, I saw your email about this but completely forgot about it. Actually, WP:DRN has a nice friendly wizard that you can use to file cases properly.[1] So I would try that first - it's at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request - and then ask on WT:DRN if you get stuck. If in doubt, just file the case, and the DRN volunteers are usually pretty good about fixing up the formatting. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 07:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ His name is TransporterMan. Joke! I'm talking about a software wizard, of course.

Battle of Chawinda

Revision after protection expired

Hello you were right to block [23] Vand. He did 17 revisions. Now he revised again after protection expired [24] he says see talk but talk page is still dispute discussion RFC is still open and he is starting same editwar. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 09:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSawTooth: This would be best left as a message at the ANI discussion, so that others can also take a look at it. And if protection is needed again, you can as at WP:RFPP. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 11:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New page protection on Battle of Chawinda

Further comments here are unlikely to lead to any further action by me. This would be best continued at WP:ANI. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 05:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Hi, The user VandVictory has started his bipartisan editing again on the Battle of Chawinda can you reinstate a page protection for the page as we still donnot have an RFC closure on the Talkpage. Although I wholeheartedly disagree with this version, I think the best thing to do is put page protection again before an editwar ensues. Also as a side note do you know if a user who is not an administrator unarchive a thread which they are involved in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:CEEC:D370:8C0B:6926:1959:5DB2 (talk) 15:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, not right now - see my reply in the section immediately above. Also, if no-one else edit wars, there will be no need for page protection. This is best resolved by discussion. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 15:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also as a side note do you know if a user who is not an administrator unarchive a thread which they are involved in?--Nawabmalhi (talk) 15:11, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Nawabmalhi: No-one should be unarchiving threads that they are involved in, even if they are an administrator. On the other hand, from time to time experienced users who are not administrators may unarchive threads that they are not involved in. Which thread are we talking about, exactly? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 15:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Occult Zone unarchived message he is starter of dispute. He was one who reported one other user for AE topic ban. After banning him some users who agreed with him in this dispute support this ban on AN/I debate only 1 neutral user commented. Admins have let it go it was archived because admin did not take any action occult pulled it back [25] then resigned it. It is clear he want to topic ban users when he is disagreed. Vand has accused my message to wilfone and you as spam you protected page and wilfone said he is watching [26]. How is it spam it does not have my website links! He is thinking he has right to define result of RFC himself. On his talkpage he is discussing to close RFC from 5 days of start. If they close RFC and ban user then where will consensus go. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 16:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Mr. Strad. Messages have been left on my talk page about this dispute. People seem to be exercised about the phrase 'major Pakistani victory' which got added partly due to the efforts of User:TopGun. The latter editor is now topic banned for three months from wars between India and Pakistan per an AE decision in which I participated. Without looking into the matter deeply, it seems possible that the Chawinda dispute could be a struggle between supporters of the two countries to portray the result of the battle in the best light for their own side. Now it happens that a person familiar with military articles, User:Bromley86, has stopped by Talk:Battle of Chawinda to give his opinion. To me, the phrase 'major Pakistani victory' sounds to me like patriotic boosterism but as an admin it's not up to me to decide content issues. I wish that editors could agree to defer to the judgment of User:Bromley86 as to the infobox wording about the result of the battle. But I don't have the patience to do much more on this, and would like to know if you have any suggestions. A continuation of the full protection could be one option if we can't think of anything else. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can bring out any "yet to be closed" discussion from archives that has some consensus. I believe that the page was recently hogged up with a lot of primary source commentaries, they had to be removed on sight but they weren't carefully watched by the editors who were active before. I had retrieved a non-controversial and policy based version[27] I had also excluded a lot of unsourced and unfounded commentaries of WP:PRIMARY sources. However, it was soon reverted and I had to open a report against TopGun due his continuous source misrepresentation. But we still got the idea about a version that had consensus and remained for long. There was probably no need of these long and tall discussions when we had to finally agree that we have got no reliable sources for claiming any sort of Pakistan's victory. We can state "Pakistan halts Indian invasion", like we did before. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston at the ANI I have specifically begged for some sort of Administrator interference as two sides on the RFC are heavily entrenched and I am completely willing to abide by any decision Bromley86 makes, if he is a neutral editor
@OccultZone you cannot unarchive a thread you are involved in, and after 3 days if it is archived you can only reapeal the issue by making new thread as that case is closed. Can you even support claim based on Wikipolicy? Also it is not consensus if pretty much all the users who support the Topic Ban are on the opposite side of RFC.
@EdJohnston ,Stradivarius can one of you re-archive the thread at the ANI, which OccultZone unarchived, as its been open for over 7 days now, I would have undone his edit but there would probably be a conflicting edit notification. And it has been over 3 days now since he had unarchived it anyway also.--Nawabmalhi (talk) 22:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, undoing automatic archiving is not a big deal. It's when things have been manually archived by another user that you need to be careful. While lowercase sigmabot III has always been a very good bot, it's not so good at picking up the fine nuances of conversation. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 05:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@EdJohnston: I don't think there's an easy solution here. It's probably going to come down to monitoring the article and using discretionary sanctions where appropriate. What "appropriate" means in this situation is going to be a tricky judgement call, but if neutral editors like Bromley86 want to edit the article, then letting them get on with it without undue distraction would be a good start. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 06:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be great if OZ can stop continuing his accusations (esp. at a discussion I've been pinged at) that I had refuted since discussing them inherently involves the topic which I can't. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources that support the requested change on Universidad Empresarial de Costa Rica Article

Greetings, sir Regarding your request for reliable sources to edit Universidad Empresarial de Costa Rica Article on Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Universidad_Empresarial_de_Costa_Rica#Protected_edit_request_on_21_December_2014 This used to be the accurate information https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Universidad_Empresarial_de_Costa_Rica&oldid=638183616

Regarding Valid Sources 1) The listing of the Ministry Of Education in Costa Rica (CONESUP) up to December 2014 (Number 38 in the listing) http://www.mep.go.cr/sites/default/files/pregunta_frecuente/documentos/lista_universidades_aprobadas_CONESUP.pdf 2) UNESCO WHED (World higher Education Database) up to December 2014 where www.unem.edu.pl is the official website http://www.whed.net/detail_institution.php?id=17738 3) DMOZ Listing where www.unem.edu.pl is the official website http://www.dmoz.org/search?q=unem 4) http://www.unem.edu/ its a dead site changed for the local domain www.unem.cr 5) Copyright certificate where POLAND is depicted as first country for the published website for UNIVERSIDAD EMPRESARIAL DE COSTA RICA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Copyright_Universidad_Empresarial_de_Costa_Rica.jpg 6) Unesco Centre www.unesco.vg listing Universidad Empresarial de Costa Rica in good standing under Costa Rica list http://unesco.vg/Unesco_2011_List.pdf

So, a sensacionalist newspaper with information published on 2008 with no solid ground, cannot be used to damage University and students reputation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PolandMEC (talk • contribs) 13:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@PolandMEC: This needs to go on the article's talk page. I don't want to get involved in content discussions, as then I would no longer be able to enact edit requests there. If there's a consensus to make an edit on the article's talk page, then you can make an edit request for it. But any such requests needs to be backed up by reliable sources - that's what I was getting at with my decline reason earlier. By the way, none of the sources you've listed above count as reliable sources for Wikipedia's purposes - we use things like books, papers published in academic journals, and news articles from news sources with a reputation for fact-checking. See WP:RS for the details. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look to Universidad Empresarial de Costa Rica Talk Page Based on WikiDan61 comment "I can support accepting http://www.unem.edu.pl as the official website of this organization based on its publication in the sources listed." I request that you make the edition in the infobox. Thanks for your time

PolandMEC (talk) 21:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Humble request for help

Hi. In search of anyone not drunk yet :)

I'm clueless when it comes to refining, etc. .js and I was wondering if you could take the following and make it "less clumsy". Its for use on Wikisource btw and ultimately would like to make it a Gadget that users can select. TIA. -- George Orwell III (talk) 08:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply] 

/**
 * Force certain div containers to render outside of main content wrapper.
 * See ___
 */
jQuery( document ).ready( function ( $ ) {
	$( 'body.ns-0 div#headertemplate' )
			.insertBefore( $ ( 'div#mw-content-text' ) );
	$( 'body.ns-0 div#heedertemplate' )
			.insertBefore( $ ( 'div#mw-content-text' ) );
	$( 'body.ns-114 div#headertemplate' )
			.insertBefore( $ ( 'div#mw-content-text' ) );
	$( 'body.ns-114 div#heedertemplate' )
			.insertBefore( $ ( 'div#mw-content-text' ) );
} );
@George Orwell III: Well, I'm not really a JavaScript person, but doing the same thing four times doesn't look ideal. Perhaps you could use an if statement to check the namespace rather than doing it in the selector? Also, I wonder if there is a way to combine the "heedertemplate" and "headertemplate" IDs. I'd say put them in a class, but I don't know if that would mean changing a lot of pages. If you have to use more than one selector, you could abstract the .insertBefore code out into a function so that you're not duplicating code. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 08:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid going the class route would not only complicate the existing settings defined under each but some rocket scientist used it for footers, ToCs and similar variants on top of plain old headers long before I signed up there so it's go with all ids or nothing. I can live without hEEdertemplate since thats basically just for development/testing at this point.

It works as is - but like you said: 4x seems like overkill. -- George Orwell III (talk) 08:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. In that case, if you're willing to do without "heedertemplate" then I would write the code like this:
jQuery( document ).ready( function () {
	var nsid = mw.config.get( 'wgNamespaceNumber' );
	if ( nsid === 0 || nsid === 114 ) {
		$( 'div#headertemplate' ).insertBefore( $ ( 'div#mw-content-text' ) );
	}
} );
And if you want "heedertemplate" as well, I would write it like this:
jQuery( document ).ready( function () {
	var nsid = mw.config.get( 'wgNamespaceNumber' );
	if ( nsid === 0 || nsid === 114 ) {
		function forceRender ( selector ) {
			$( selector ).insertBefore( $ ( 'div#mw-content-text' ) );
		}
		forceRender( 'div#headertemplate' );
		forceRender( 'div#heedertemplate' );
	}
} );
I haven't tested that, though, and you should probably get someone else to look over it in case I've done something stupid. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 10:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year Mr. Stradivarius!

Happy New Year!

Mr. Stradivarius,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Atsme☯Consult 13:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.
Thank you! I wish you a very happy 2015 as well. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 05:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Dear Mr. Stradivarius,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:18, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

Thank you! I hope you have a wonderful year as well. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 05:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 December 2014

Happy New Year Mr. Stradivarius!

Happy New Year!

Mr. Stradivarius,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. NorthAmerica1000 16:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.
Thank you, and have a very happy 2015 yourself. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 01:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RFA

Hi, have you assessed my RFA candidature? Regards. --Tito☸Dutta 09:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, not yet, sorry. I've been distracted with all the New Year's festivities. Let me have a look for you now. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Titodutta: Ok, it's been a long time in coming, but it's finally done - take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Titodutta. Once you've answered the three questions, just sign to accept the nomination, and you'll be ready to go. Also, now would be a good time to find co-nominators if you want any. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 09:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your message

Naturally, I'm disappointed – more, though, by your interpretation than the removal of rights.

I'm not sure I understand, however, how the Incidents thread relates to your action. You realize that it wasn't prompted by Edokter's tendency to revert..?

Sincerely, Sardanaphalus (talk) 11:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DRN needs assistance

You are receiving this message because you have listed yourself as a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard.

We have a backlog of cases there which need volunteer attention. If you have time available, please take one or more of these cases.

If you do not intend to take cases or help with the administration of DRN on a regular basis, or if you do not wish to receive further notices of this nature, please remove your username from the volunteer list. If you later decide to resume activities at DRN you may relist your name at that time.

Best regards, TransporterMan 15:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)

Thanks, one small request still

Thanks for your quick help here! But, I think I forgot one part... Can you change return list.join ( ', ' ) + ' en ' + last ; to return list.join ' en ' + last ;? This will be needed to remove a unneeded comma. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 20:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sjoerddebruin: Isn't list.join ' en ' a syntax error in JavaScript? Actually, the code return list.join ( ', ' ) + ' en ' + last ; looks fine to me. Perhaps the extra comma is being introduced somewhere else? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 09:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, it seems like the logical place for it. As you can see here, there is still ", and" instead of "en". Maybe the Resonator doesn't use this script for that part of the code... Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 09:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Sjoerddebruin: The first thing to find out would be which version of the script is the actual live one, yes. :) If it is MediaWiki:Wdsearch-autodesc.js, then it looks like wd_auto_desc.lang is set to "en" for some reason. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 10:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I haven't fully used the talk page for changing Arudou Debito.

You aren't allowing me to edit Debito's Wikipedia page just because I haven't discussed it in the talk page, but i'm trying to talk about changing the article, but you simply won't respond. Not one is responding to my messages. The talk page is basically dead. Besides, how is the criticism section a violation of Wikipedia policy. How are the sources that are included not relevant. It's not designed to cause defamation of character. It's just ment to express the criticism that Debito has received. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 01:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Graylandertagger: I'm not getting involved in content discussions at Debito's page as I'm acting as an administrator there, not as a regular editor. There have been enough other editors removing the "Criticism" section heading that it's obvious that there isn't a consensus for it, however. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 10:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution reward

The Mediation Award The Mediation Award
Now that you've moved on to other endeavors this is in recognition to your outstanding career service in dispute resolution at English Wikipedia, both in planning and administration and in the excellent mediation of particularly difficult and vexing cases. We couldn't have done it without you, Strad, and your talents are sorely missed. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! This means a lot coming from you. As I've said elsewhere, I may come back to dispute resolution when the mood takes me, so we may end up working together again sooner than you think. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 18:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 07 January 2015

You've got mail!

Hello, Mr. Stradivarius. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 14:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Tito☸Dutta 14:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2015-03

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent software changes

  • Rotated PDF files in landscape format used to show too small. They will now display correctly. You may need to purge older files. [29]
  • You can now use the {{!}} magic word instead of Template:!. Many wikis used the template to create a pipe (|) in tables and templates. You can delete the template. [30]

Software changes this week

  • The new version of MediaWiki (1.25wmf14) has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since January 7. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from January 13. It will be on all Wikipedias from January 14 (calendar).
  • A bug in VisualEditor sometimes added a ☀ (Sun) character. This is now fixed. [31]
  • The search and replace tool in VisualEditor is now much faster in long pages. [32]
  • The TemplateData editor now uses the same design as VisualEditor. [33] [34] [35]
  • The thumb option is now shown in your language in the help of the classic editor toolbar. [36]

Future changes

  • You can sign up to answer questions from designers. It will help them make editing easier. [37]

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

16:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Your advice is welcome

Hi User:Mr. Stradivarius. I am coming to your talk page as I note you signed the The Autie Pact back in 2012. I am a non-neurotypical who lives with Autism in the form of Asperger Syndrome. If you know much about those of us on the Spectrum as well as Wikipedia editors on the Spectrum, you probably understand that editing and communication can be difficult enough for neurotypicals, excruciatingly difficult at times for editors like me with Autism. I am here on your talk page not because I am asking you to intervene, I am not canvassing for support, I am not here because you are an administrator. I am here because you signed the Autie Pact that is meant to be a way to move toward bridging the gap between neurotypical editors and editors with Autism Spectrum Disorder(s). Currently, there has been a discussion for a few days at AN/I regarding my ability to edit. I have been open there about being a person with Asperger's. When that information was brought forth, the reactions have been -- shall we say -- less than complimentary to those expressing their views about editors with Autism. This discussion and the comments from long-time and not-so-long-time editors is, in my opinion, an example of how far we still have to go in Wikipedia toward understanding that we are made up of editors with different editing styles and different ways of seeing the world. Of course, the difference in editors with Autism is more obvious and can be, at times, more maddening to neurotypicals. That said, with the rate of autism being somewhere between 1:55 - 1:110 and Wikipedia being a magnet for those with ASDs, I think it's fair to say that awareness is extremely important. Also important to remember is that discrimination against editors because they have ASDs is just not appropriate nor does it echo WP:AGF. If you are interested in seeing the thread at AN/I I am referring to, the link is here [38]. I have no expectation that you will look at it, my purpose here is really just awareness that Wikipedia still has a long way to go in the way of interactions and understanding between autism-spectrum editors and neurotypical editors. And, as the title of this section says, your advice would be welcome. Thanks for your time. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Winkelvi: Hi! I agree that Wikipedia would be a nicer place to be if neurotypical editors had more awareness of what it's like to be on the Autism spectrum. Unfortunately, I don't think I'll have time to comment at ANI today. I'm just putting some finishing touches to Module:Article history before I go to bed, and I will be busy tomorrow. If I have time tomorrow evening, then I will look at the thread and maybe comment there. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 16:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mr._Stradivarius&oldid=642326808"