This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Just noticed in passing ...
... and didn't know if you were aware of the history. — Ched : ? 18:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Sources for nett gross in India for Bollywood films
BoxofficeIndia.com cannot be used as official reference(tracker) for Bollywood films nett collections in India. BoxofficeIndia is not updating its website on a regular basis ,so the reports og nett collections in India are reported very late on its website.Also, Wikipedia is not able to utilize lists of film grosses created by Box Office India, until permission is provided to the Wikimedia Foundation of permission by Box Office India. Respected critics such as Taran Adarsh and Komal Nahta are giving regualar and genuine nett collection figures in India for Bollywood films.Taran Adarsh has website www.bollywoodhungama.com and Komal Nahta has website www.koimoi.com We can also use OneIndia.com, The Times of India as sources it doesn’t means that a magazine like Hindustan Times or The hindu will not report genuine sources ,compared to a not so updated website of BoxofficeIndia.com
BoxofficeIndia should be used only when other sources stop giving gross report.First bring a consensus on this nett gross issue. --Ghajinidetails (talk) 20:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Sources for worldwide gross and overseas gross of Bollywood films
BoxofficeIndia has demerit that it is not giving overseas reports of films on a regular basis.It will show figues only once or twice,So u cannot include BoxofficeIndia figures. Also,When u wil see infobox of Holywood films,they have worldwide gross. So try to include worldwide gross which includes domestic gross(nett gross in India+entertainment tax) and overseas gross. --Ghajinidetails (talk) 20:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Final push
The Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Vanished 6551232 CCI is down to its final 25 articles. If we can tackle one a day each we can get it done in a week, and two a day will get it closed by the end of the weekend. Let's see if we can get this done and cut down a bit on the CCI backlog, we've been doing great so far. WizardmanOperation Big Bear 18:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Nice to finally see another one closed. :) Got done faster than I expected there. --WizardmanOperation Big Bear 04:32, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow
In this issue:
Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
Research: The most recent DR data
Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
Hard to believe, but they came off their block and then returned to the article to make the exact same edit. I didn't think it was possible for someone to do that. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for taking the time to participate in my RfA. I hope that I will be able to improve based on the feedback I received and become a better editor. AutomaticStrikeout 02:40, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
University of Ceylon Review.
This was a valid scholarly journal of good standing. The article was deleted in the middle of a discussion about citation and copyright, which seems a little extreme. The amount of material cut out by a contributor who took citation of an author and title as a copyright problem naturally left the article stripped of useful content. The wiki article did not copy out text from the Review, it only pointed to the PDFs the University of Perediniya provides. The description was close to their description of the publication, for sure, but that's about it: the publication stopped back in 1967 so the description, which appeared also on the inside covers of the Review, is an historic artefact. If you put the article back, I will change the wording. As it stands (stood?) I was just representing the journal they way they wanted to represent it. The wording could be improved, and I thought that at the time. Perhaps I should have intervened at that point, but I did not want to appear like a neo-colonialist. Anyway, I hope we can start again, otherwise this falls off the map, sadly, like so much in Sri Lanka.Shirazibustan (talk) 23:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Shirazibustan
Reply to your message. Thanks for the message. The points are well taken. That we are not a directory is a good observation, fair enough. We can therefore move to mentioning a few notable articles, i.e. those cited externally to the Review for whatever reason. So now a proposed plan: if you would kindly put the article back in place, I will, in the next 5 hours, edit the piece so that it does not infringe the copyrighted description of the Review, and I will give a sentence or two about the journal's notability. This is a publication that matters to Sri Lankans and to those with an interest in the place. I hope you'll find this a useful way of moving forward. Thanks.Shirazibustan (talk) 09:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)Shirazibustan
You say that"My main area of work is in copyright problems" and I was wondering would you be able to assist me with one or two probelms. You correctlty guessued that my method involved copying and pasting from sources and then writing the articles. I have got all my offending userpace drafts deleted.But the article Edward O'Grady has copyrightd material in its history from it was a userspace draft and I was wondering would you be able to delete this without delting the entire article. Alternatively would I be as well to copy exsisting article to Microsoft word and have current article deleted and recreate article? What would you sugest? Finnegas (talk) 11:33, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
its not copyvios or copyright violation.Telugu and tamil versions of Don 2 and Ra.one are given for worldwide and its totally different from BOI figures.u can check. also BOI tables listing is different from here .total 44 films are here.there its absurd). i have not mentioned ra.one at 202 cr and don 2 at 206 cr. u can check the data. also jab tak hai jaan is not in BOI tables.its an old table. i am putting recent updated figures with table listing.Also Highest-grossing Bollywood films adjusted for inflation,on the lines of List of highest-grossing films.the table listing is different with different data .Please check once .dont do anything immmeadiately. Besharamsun (talk) 07:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
CCI process documentation
Thank you for your help in improving the CCI process documentation. I look forward to collaborating with you on improving the accuracy and completeness of the CCI process documentation. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 08:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Technical issue at CP?
Hi. :) I'm trying to delist 9/13, as I've completed it, but every time I try to remove it and save, I trip the spam filter. I tried munging the address on the three days where it appeared, but that didn't help, so I finally redacted the URL altogether from everywhere I found it, even in fragment form. But I still can't edit the copyright problems page to remove the 13th. :( I'm a total loss. My major confusion is that this has been blacklisted sine 2010, according to the logs. And, of course, this URL is NOWHERE ON THE PAGE. It is, at best, transcluded. Can you help? This is horribly frustrating and a massive waste of time that should be put into actually cleaning copyright problems. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 15:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Well I found the problem - the url was on the 11/13 SCV page and by removing 9/13 WP:CP was now trying to transclude 11/13 whereas previously it wasn't due to transclude limit issue. I removed the url from 11/13 and could save CP with 9/13. What I'm less sure about is how the link got and stayed there in the first place. Do you know if bot edits are checked against the spam lists? As existing links seem to be allowed when saving a page this might explain it as the edit that would have included the url on both day listings would have been done by a bot, as it normally would've been at WP:CP if it wasn't for the backlog that means a day isn't transcluded as soon as it's added. Dpmuk (talk) 16:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Wow. Thank you so much for fixing it. I have no idea how the spam blacklist works, I'm afraid. Maybe bots are exempt? That would seem to make sense. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 16:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Just thought I'd chime in here: bot's aren't exempt from the spam blacklist, and CorenSearchBot's code simply crashes when it tries to make an edit with one and are rejected (although I don't know all of the changes that MadmanBot has to fix those smaller bugs, so it may handle it with more grace). Anyways, the particular URL which was apparently causing the problem wasn't implemented until a couple of hours after that posting at SCV. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Ahh, thank you. I'd somehow confused the .info and .com addresses in the blacklist log. That makes a lot more sense now! Dpmuk (talk) 17:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Non-free content
Then it looks like VeroWhitney has some work to do. There are 35 seasonal bowls games in 2012-2013 that use logos. If this policy is as effective as you have written, then it should they should be deleted on all articles. I assume it may cause some issues in the Wikipedia community and perhaps it will clear up some confusion.--68.98.115.70 (talk) 02:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Hey! I want to create a page for Abbas Uddin Previous page was deleted for the copy violation. I am not aware about the exact content of the previous article. It was written there that before creating the page I should contact u. Is there any special rule for creating this page? Please let me know.Urbashi (talk) 13:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Falkland Islands dispute.
Hi. I was part of that, and am attempting to facilitate. At the moment it seems to be much smoother and constructive discussions are now ongoing on the relevant talk page. You mentioned your closing statement. Where can I find that? I would like to read it, as I am interested in the mechanisms of dispute resolution "on the ground". Any link to it would be greatly appreciated. Kind regards Irondome (talk) 05:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the detailed response! regards Irondome (talk) 00:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi there. After several days of excellent progress, where the parties have got as far as proposing a short concise and generally acceptable draft, things are in danger of spinning out of control again. We are not yet at a crisis though. However I would greatly appreciate it if you could spare the time to pop over and take a fresh look. "Proposed version" is the most relevant and recent section where most work is being done at the mo. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 02:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Your input and time is greatly appreciated, and im sure I dont just speak for myself. Kind regards Irondome (talk) 05:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Indeed thank you very much for your time. Not any editor would be willing to dive into such a long mess to help out. Regards. Gaba p (talk)
Note
Just for the record since you are a neutral outsider to the discussion, this is the kind of things I complain later on about Wee. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 16:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Re: your email
Thanks for your concerns, but I'm not particularly interested in doing anything. The user is blocked, so no disruption is going to happen there; that's the only reason that I wanted to conceal anything. I've previously connected my IP (a previous one that Comcast gave me for a few months) with my username, and my location in Bloomington is something I've mentioned multiple times on-wiki, so I don't mind this information being publicly guessable. Nyttend (talk) 03:54, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Oh, definitely; I complete understand, and I appreciate it. Much better to be safe than sorry. Nyttend (talk) 04:00, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
WikiProject Cleanup
Hello, Dpmuk.
You are invited to join WikiProject Cleanup, a WikiProject and resource for Wikipedia cleanup listings, information and discussion.
To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm curious about the deletion of the article about Amber Wolfe. As far as I can tell, there was no nomination for deletion or opportunity for discussion. As its creator, I'd like to know more, and why the need for such speed.Rosencomet (talk) 21:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
It seems to me that the proper thing to do would be to nominate it for deletion rather than just decide to delete it, and give the community the chance to comment on it and/or to beef it up and add material to support the subject's notability. Just deciding on your own, with no notice either to the creator of the article or anyone else - heck, not even a speedy delete notice - that this author of at least six books and producer of at least three spoken word recordings by a notable publisher, Llewellyn Worldwide, is not notable enough for YOU, seems an overly quick action. Couldn't you have allowed others to have some input?Rosencomet (talk) 06:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Request
Hi Dpmuk,
I see you had to close down the Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute article. This should not have been necessary if editor Apcbg didn't edit war thoroughly discussed content out of the article simply based on "no consensus" (incidentally: WP:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus") after having contributed not a single character to a two-week long discussion.
I know it's a lot to ask, but would you be willing to go through the discussion over here and open a neutral RfC? If I open one Wee Curry Monster will immediately accuse it of not being NPOV so I don't even bother. As a neutral outsider and one with some knowledge of discussions that go on in that article, you'd be the ideal candidate for this.
I'll understand if you don't have the time (or simply don't want to get sucked into this) and in that case I'll see about asking some other editor. Regards. Gaba(talk) 17:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Dpmuk. You have new messages at Gaba p's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, Dpmuk. You have new messages at Gaba p's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Deletion of burnpur cement
Why have u deleted the page? U do not seem to be from india, so how can u know whether a company is significant or not?
The company is one of the leading cement manufacturers of cement in the eastern region
Kindly undelete the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rishabhgutgutia (talk • contribs) 19:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I have written the article myself, hence it does not violate any copyright laws
Only certain names and certain technical terms have been copied — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rishabhgutgutia (talk • contribs) 19:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Kindly type in burnpur cement in google, an option appears saying "burnpur cement wiki" which indicates that many people have searched for this page
The primary reason for me to create this page was to cater to the demands of the people
Kindly paste the old article on my talk page (so that i can work on a new draft) or undelete the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rishabhgutgutia (talk • contribs) 20:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
You might want to consider blocking User:Tonyfuchs1019 (or at the very least remove the reviewer right) -- a look at the editor's talk page shows copyvio notices since 2007 and is completely unresponsive to talk page comments (2 user talk edits). MER-C 05:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Falkland Islands Sovereignty Dispute
Hi,
You recently protected the article Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute. Would you mind looking at the edit history. The article is being citation bombed by User:Andrés Djordjalian, even after citations are provided he is claiming they're not in the cite but they clearly are eg [1][2] and [3][4]. The behaviour is distinctly WP:POINTy and the talk page discussion seems to be dissolving into three editors ganging up to make personal attacks. Wee Curry Monstertalk 00:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, the intervention is appreciated. I am concerned that the talk page discussions really aren't productive, I would appreciate your feedback as I can't see how to make it better right now. Wee Curry Monstertalk 19:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
I must apologise for once again asking for your help. User:Gaba p and User:Andrés Djordjalian are once again threatening to restore contested edits see [6] and I am really tired of the way discussions go on that talk page. They have lobbied a number of users to start an RFC without success, an RFC started by User:Gaba p received no response (and I have to note he effectively sabotaged it by his obsession with the WP:LASTWORD). I really don't see how to make the talk page discussions more productive and focused, I must admit to having enjoyed a little diversion writing content again. Any advice would be very much appreciated. Wee Curry Monstertalk 08:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
The issue really is Wee Curry Monster blocking a perfectly valid and thoroughly sourced edit preferring to leave a version in the article tagged for failed verification. I have no idea which users Wee Curry Monster is referring to, but the only user I've lobbied to open an RfC about the issue is you. Just to be more clear: there has been no RfC opened about this issue in spite of what Wee Curry Monster is asserting.
His continued opposition to an edit that clearly improves the article has been going for over a month now even though it has been explained to him time after time that the sources used are uncontroversial (he knows this of course) and its usage almost verbatim (so there's no interpretation going on)
In any case, it'd be great if you could stop by. I won't ask you again to open an RfC because I already did and you said you had little time, that's why I asked Wee Curry Monsster to either open one himself or look for another user. Regards. Gaba(talk) 11:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I really am sorry to have to amplify my message see [7], I'm sure it must have slipped his mind that he'd tried to ask another editor to open an RFC but was rebuffed. My comments about his obsession with the WP:LASTWORD are more than amplified by the fact I can rarely reach out to another editor in their talk page without Gaba p chipping in with comments alleging I am the problem. Noting his contribution history [8] you may understand my concern about his obsession with my editing. Wee Curry Monstertalk 12:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Wee Curry Monster at this point I don't know if you are purposely trying to confuse Dpmuk or if you really are so tangled up with your continued oppositions to just about every edit made to the article that doesn't come from either you or your clique of editors, that you don't see you still don't get it. The RfC I asked editor Scjessey to open was about a completely different issue than the one I asked Dpmuk to open. Do you comprehend this fact? I have only asked Dpmuk to open an RfC about your blocking of the claims as stated by Argentina's official sources, no one else.
Accusing me of stalking your edits is rather ironic when: a- I commented on Dpmuk's talk page before you so any change made here appears in my watchlist, and b- you proved you are hounding me yourself by pasting an unrelated message I left in Scjessey's talk page. Please try to keep your WP:PAs to a minimum Wee Curry Monster, will you?
I really am sorry for this Dpmuk, but this is not the first time (by a long shot) that Wee Curry Monster misrepresents other editor's actions/comments (I am not the only one who has commented on this behaviour) I thought my previous message would be enough to make him realize he was wrong in his assertions, but apparently he's not happy unless he gets the WP:LASTWORD. Regards. Gaba(talk) 13:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
There appears to be two separate issues, one of user conduct and one a content dispute. Both of you need to stop badgering each other and assume good faith otherwise I fear this will soon end up at Arbcom. As for the content dispute I don't have time at the moment to try to resolve this. I would suggest Wikipedia:Requests for mediation is the way forward if all parties are agreeable to this. Dpmuk (talk) 16:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I'd prefer something binding like RfC, otherwise the issue will surely be dragged on forever. Is RfM's outcome binding?
And yes Dpmuk, there surely is a conduct issue here as well. I'm pretty sure Wee Curry Monster just emailed you a great deal of accusations against me and I could bet anything that among those he claims I'm a sock puppet of a long blocked editor. I don't intent on going down the same mud-throwing path, just mention that Wee Curry Monster has been advised profusely to stop his baseless accusations and has a distinctive history of aggressiveness towards other editors. Anyway, thanks for the help. Cheers. Gaba(talk) 18:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
To quote from the Mediation Committee policy "Mediated agreements are not binding. Any agreement achieved through mediation is not permanently binding. If consensus is achieved in a mediation case, the parties are expected by the community to honour the result. However, the consensus does not apply to articles outside the scope of the mediation, nor does it last permanently. Consensus can change." which to me is pretty much the same as an RfC as RfC's aren't binding but ignoring them is likely to lead to action for being disruptive. Certainly if mediation leads to an agreement I would expect the parties involved to abide by it and would enforce it if necessary. The advantage of mediation over RfCs is that mediation would have someone guiding the discussion and hopefully keeping things calmer.
Yes I have received an e-mail. As it was an e-mail I won't comment on it's content here although suffice to say that I don't think there's anything in it that can't be aired on wiki so I won't be acting on it as I prefer these things to be public. Dpmuk (talk) 19:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I took the email route as I didn't wish to clutter your talk page unnecessarily. Basically I commented on the fact that Gaba p has been hounding me since March 2012, whenever this comes under scrutiny he is very good at deflecting attention with smokescreen tactics. As previously, I made no comment on sock puppetry, one of the smokescreen tactics is faux outrage at any reference to the original block. I have no objection to mediation, however, mediation has not been effective with Gaba p, the last occasion he was alleging I opposed something I'd never even commented on. I would like Gaba p to comment on content and cease commenting on me. If he can't do that then he should step aside, its clear from his contribution history he bears a grudge. Wee Curry Monstertalk 11:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
No Wee Curry Monster, as I've explained to you a number of times already I have no grudge against you. I do resent that ever since you accused me of being a sock puppet of a blocked editor (and I had to resort to giving away my right to anonymity to lift the block) you've been trying your best to get me to stop contributing to the two Falklands related articles I edit. That's more than a year ago now. I also resent you keep referring to my continued plea that you stop referring to me as a sock puppet as faux outrage (which also I've told you a number of times already and you keep doing) Dpmuk please check the talk page and see for yourself if I don't comment on content. I truly believe I must be the editor that comments most on content in the articles I contribute to. Wee Curry Monster, don't you find it ironic to ask me to stop commenting on editors after you send an email to an admin commenting exclusively about me? Anyway, thanks again Dpmuk. I'll try to solve this matter with Wee Curry Monster over at the talk page to see which one opens the RfM. Cheers. Gaba(talk) 14:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Dpmuk. Please check your email; you've got mail! 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.
I want to thank you for that. Seriously, that was needed and you did a good thing for Wikipedia.Hope we can move forward and would welcome your active supervision on the page. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Could you close the request at WP:ANRFC please. Wayne (talk) 15:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Someone has abruptly declared consensus, posted the rfc, and there are already personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith. I don't think this is going to end well. Can you look at the page? Thanks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
It looks like things are settling down, not really necessitating your immediate attention. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
I've been civil. I've limited myself to answering questions or claims yet Phoenix and Winslow continues to make personal attacks. I don't want to argue with him so someone needs to tell him to treat people with the same civility that they treat him. Wayne (talk) 16:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
I just wanted to stop by and thank you for stepping into this discussion in an attempt, however difficult, to keep it civil.Mandurahmike (talk) 01:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Redacting comments supposedly linking Mandurahmike and Sorcha and which got very close to outing. As I don't believe it amounts to canvassing (see below) I think it's best it's gone. Dpmuk (talk) 20:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I do not like doing this. It feels like I am stalking. But it is clear the Australian editors are canvassing for votes. Please remember the circumstances at the start of the voting. Phoenix and Winslow created the RfC on a separate page. Binksternet was watching. A few minutes later he moved the RfC to Talk:Ugg boots trademark disputes but he did not vote yet. It was the middle of the night in Australia, but when the sun rose in Australia the "oppose" had six votes. Binksternet voted to make it seven votes. All this after only 20 hours. It is clear to me. These votes were organized off-wiki. It is most likely they used e-mail to organize. The early voting was suspicious, but there was not enough proof. Sorcha provided proof. Liangshan Yi (talk) 15:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Clear as mud. Only four of the 10 oppose votes were made by Australian editors. The first Australian vote after the RfC opened was five hours later at 00:02am followed by 6:16am and 6:47am on 3 May and 2:07pm on 4 May, that's four votes in 31 hours not seven in 20 and there is nothing unusual about the times. Also...four editors!!!!! If we canvassed we could probably get 44. I doubt if any of the Australian editors have ever contacted any other by email and with consensus on our side why would we bother, we all knew this RfC was going on. I could also ask about off-wiki contact. Factchk started editing in support of P&W as a SPA on Ugg boots and stopped editing after a sockpuppet investigation of Phoenix and Winslow in 2011 blocked six sockpuppets and found that Factchk and Liangshan Yi were possible meatpuppets. Factchk's vote in this RfC was and still is his only edit in the 18 months since that investigation. Liangshan Yi also started editing in support of P&W as a SPA on Ugg boots then took the same 18 month break. He came back on 22 April to reply to a request for language help and told the editor he was inactive and too busy to edit, but after editing a few Chinese topics (perhaps so he is no longer an SPA? He was tagged as one last time he edited Ugg boots) he turns up here a few days later. Both of these seem suspicious as I believe all three live in the same city and they both turned up after Phoenix and Winslow was told he can't canvass, but then it could be coincidence. No one has brought this history up despite the evidence so it amazes me that Liangshan Yi is so obsessed with some Australian editors that he is both accusing and stalking them without evidence of any wrongdoing. Is Mandurahmike Sorcha? Both are long term editors with no articles in common and with an obvious consensus, there is nothing to gain. Sorcha may or may not be a relative, is there a rule where a relative cant edit? My nephew edits Wikipedia and asked me if he could comment in the RfC. I told him he could comment but that I preferred it if he didn't actually vote. While I cant speak for anyone else I have always played fair. Wayne (talk) 20:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Liangshan Yi - Firstly I'd recommend that you read WP:OUTING. I've redacted some of their comments as I think they get too close to outing and it's unnecessary in this case. At best you've linked two editors as husband and wife - I've not reviewed the evedience as I don't believe it's relevant. Maybe they discussed it and it's not coincident but that's hardly canvassing and certainly not bad enough to warrant any action. As for the rest of the accusation you appear to have no prove what soever, at best you have a coincidence. Given the history on the page it's hardly surprising people would have been watching it. Could there be wider canvassing, it's possible but there's no prove. Hence I ask that you don't paste the accusation on the article talk page as it's only likely to make discussion more difficult. If you disagree with my assessment I suggest you ask another neutral admin or experienced editor for a second opinion.
WLRoss - Again I'm not really seeing enough evedience there, suspicious behaviour, yes, but it's possible they just had the page watch listed. Dpmuk (talk) 20:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
This is a friendly reminder. It is time to close the RfC. There is no activity there for two weeks. Consensus should be determined by WP:CONSENSUS#Determining_consensus: "Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." The number of votes is not mentioned and should not matter. Also, in Wikipedia:Closing_discussions: "Consensus is not determined by counting heads." The second time the previous RfC was closed, you admitted one side had stronger policy arguments, but you allowed the larger number of votes on the other side to balance it, producing a "no consensus" result. Policy arguments are almost identical to the previous RfC and policy teaches us the number of votes must be ignored. Therefore I believe based on the policy arguments, we have consensus for adding the counterfeiting cases. Please respond here since I will be watching this page. Liangshan Yi (talk) 04:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Posted a message on the article talk page. Dpmuk (talk) 21:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Disruptive Tagging
I am really sorry to come here again, could I trouble you to look at Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute again. Its all getting rather silly again. First we had citation bombing, I've worked through and provided a shed load of citations. Then it was claimed that the inline citations didn't support the claim made. So I added a load of quotes to demonstrate that they did. That was ignored to re-add the tags, that I simply removed as pure disruption. Now they're adding tags demanding more citations, more quotes and removing content and its spilling over into other articles such as Arana-Southern Treaty. This seems to be very much a WP:POINT exercise. Would you agree? Wee Curry Monstertalk 16:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Well I was coming here to say pretty much the same thing: it's getting silly. I've added some tags to sections that desperately need some improvement in the Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute and in a section of the Arana-Southern Treaty article (that he used as a reference, so I ended up looking for the source over there). The reasons for each tag were properly explained in the summaries and Wee Curry Monster simply blanket-reverted everything calling me disruptive. Some (all) of his edits are simply unexcusable like removing the WP:SPS tag from the falklands.info site or saying that several authors say something when apaprently none of them do[9]. The quote needed tag is a useful source when what is being sourced is doubtful or a WP:SYN is suspected. I ask Wee Curry Monster that if he has the information that is lacking then please add it, otherwise leave the tags so that other editors can add the lacking information themselves. I'd also appreciate if he could stop calling disruptive pretty much every edit he disagrees with, it's getting old. Regards. Gaba(talk) 16:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Dpmuk, thanks for your comments in the talk page. I have been making an effort to avoid the article to allow others to comment. However, as regards WP:POINT, let me illustrate that with a simple example. You add a citation [10], its claimed it doesn't support the cite [11], you add a quote to show it does [12] and its tagged again [13] claiming it doesn't. Thats simply one example, there are others, in all cases the inline citation clearly supports the edit. Are you familiar with Monty Python and the 5 minute argument? Now I'm all for WP:AGF and I'm willing to listen how I may have misunderstood the intention.
Please take a look at this discussion and see than once again Wee Curry Monster opposes to change the status quo (after an automatic blanket-revert of my edit [14]) even after more than enough sources have already been presented and the reasons explained not only by myself but by another editor over there. I also note how Wee Curry Monster refers to an "outbreak for information" as if it was a bad thing? What am I missing here? Regards. Gaba(talk) 16:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for proposing a topic ban on me, ironically User:Gaba p was only unblocked from an indefinite block because User:JamesBWatson asked for my help and I gave it. The guy has bullied me and several others for over a year but I am the principle object of his campaign. I no longer get any joy out of editing wikipedia and its down to a combination of his bullying and the inaction of admins who simply can't be arsed to deal with bullying behaviour. I've already come close to quitting several times because of that guy, I guess I've just had enough now. My contributions had already slowed anyway. Wee Curry Monstertalk 18:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Re: Amber Wolfe
Hi, could you send me a copy of this deleted article or restore it to a temporary page in user space, or add it to the article incubator? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 21:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Please send me a copy of this article in it's entirety so I can improve it. I was the original creator of it, and I don't think Viriditas wants the job, although I welcome any imput he may wish to have on it, as always. Thanks in advance. Rosencomet (talk) 19:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
BTW, if the paragraph you object to is the one beginning "Amber Wolfe continues to rank high among Wiccan authors", I agree it has no place in the article, whether for copyright reasons or just because it's advert/promo and peacock language. I'm pretty sure I didn't put it there, but if I did, I shouldn't have. Rosencomet (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, Dpmuk. You have new messages at Wee Curry Monster's talk page. Message added 15:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi, many thanks for closing the RfC. It wasn't an easy one to sum up! That you took the time is much appreciated. SlimVirgin(talk) 23:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
My account
Hi! I had created this user month ago because I can't to log in commons. After my request not yet answered, I decided to use this account and close another account because I had many bad edits with that. I'm hoping to do not against Wikipedia policies. Tabarez2 (talk) 11:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
I've blocked this account as a sock, but feel that there was no ill intent (and it seems to have been created while the original account was not blocked). I've advised that unblock requests should come from the original account, but won't object to anyone else saying different. Peridon (talk) 12:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm so sorry to hear that you're intending to retire (even if semi). :( And I'm especially sorry to hear that this is what did it, since that's based on a misunderstanding. So far as I know, you will never be forced to use VisualEditor if you don't like it. Not everyone can. The rollout of VE has been very rocky, I know, but I am told and believe that it was never intended to replace standard editing. That's not to say that WMF isn't hoping that it will be embraced and adored by everyone, because I'm sure they do. But you do and will have the choice.
With the ArbCom stuff, obviously, I've got nothing really to say, but maybe if one of your reasons for retirement is addressed, you'll change your mind. I certainly hope so. Even if you need a break. Because certainly you are valued...by me anyway.
And if you decide that it's the right decision for you anyway, please accept my thanks for all you have done. I have genuinely enjoyed collaborating with you. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 13:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Add my name to those sorry to hear your decision. Though understanding the frustration. I hope the situation gets better.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I really do understand your perspective and your frustration. Personally, I think that what we are seeing now is the cusp of change. Two years and a little while ago, the Wikimedia Foundation had no liaisons. Now we have five, as well as three community advocates and a director of community advocacy. This expansion represents a desire to work more closely with the community. There's never been this community engagement in any initiative at WMF of which I'm aware. I'll admit that being "front desk" when change is implemented isn't always fun, particularly when I'm not in authority...since I can't say "Oh, your wish is granted!" :) But the liaisons working on VE have processed tons of feedback from the community for devs to consider, and they (and I) have made sure that devs and management are aware of the community's feelings on issues. Alas, that doesn't always mean that devs and management agree, particularly as the "user" base that the WMF is reaching for is broader than the vocal community and as the vision and goals of the WMF are sometimes set beyond themselves. (The community has been asking for a visual editor for literally years, and it was prioritized by the Board to be one of the WMF's top initiatives, for instance.) There's absolutely room for improvement, including community involvement at the earliest stages, and I understand that in spite of the increasing transparency the process is still pretty opaque. (I have yet to get an answer to the questions being asked about the determination of the schedule, for instance, although I suspect that's coming...hopefully today.) But I honestly think it's getting there, and I expect it will continue to improve. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 12:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Proposal made based on seeing link on your userpage
I thought your closing comments at Wikipedia:Requests for Comment/Duplicate name in basic ASCII character set were very well worded both in terms of how far consensus went and where, with actual letter changes, it stopped. A penny for your thoughts then on whether the RfC has any bearing on the following hypothetical case where a BLP article title for whatever reason is at an "English" name, example Eric Lanlard (only became well-known after moving to UK, but hasn't adopted UK citizenship):
Éric Lanlard (born 1968) is a French pâtissier and celebrity chef
If, it was instead
Eric Lanlard (French: Éric Lanlard, born 1968) is a French pâtissier and celebrity chef
...would that be covered by the RfC result or not? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I have found what seems to be a copyrights violation of my own blog post. Someone captured a screenshot of my post and uploaded it to Wikipedia as his own's work. See: Haephrati_canvsassing.png . Please advise. M. H. 15:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael.haephrati (talk • contribs)
Image seems to be now deleted. Thanks. If it appears again under another name of place, I'll let you know. --M. H. 16:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael.haephrati (talk • contribs)
My secret plot...
...to get out of doing that day has been foiled! :) Thanks for fixing it. :D --Moonriddengirl(talk) 10:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello again
No I don't intend to return.
I do however wish to bring something to your attention.
I haven't been editing but every time I reach out to someone, he is there. You might also wish to look at the discussion here, where you may notice a disturbingly familiar pattern of vexatious argument, the old faithful accusations of WP:OR and WP:SYN. Another new editor driven away from contributing.
At the time, you did observe that it was more User:Gaba p than me, I just wonder how more blatantly obvious it needs to be? 192.35.35.40 (talk) 16:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC) {Wee Curry Monster)
It never ends. Please see answer to never-eding accusations over at Basaliks talk page. Regards. Gaba(talk) 17:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Add: It's delightfully ironic how Wee accuses me of hounding (at Basalik's page) after he went on a search through my contributions and since he found absolutely nothing he had to came up with this over-the-top incredibly silly accusation of "disturbingly familiar pattern of vexatious argument, the old faithful accusations of WP:OR and WP:SYN.". The edit he used is from one of two discussions I had 3 months ago (he had time to spare apparently) over at Talk:Creation–evolution_controversy and both can still be seen there. They're both perfectly reasonable discussion and I urge you to read them. Wee's accusations are even funnier when you realize that editor never stopped editing, so there goes his accusations of "Another new editor driven away from contributing." Anyway, sorry for the rant but his incessant accusations need a response. Regards. Gaba(talk) 17:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Dpmuk. Please check your email; you've got mail! 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.
Thanks for cleaning up after me. Not sure what happened, probably had a bunch of stuff in the clipboard and accidentally pasted it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Comment
Hi Dpmuk, I'm writing regarding this comment of yours. You are correct that in the list I provided of editors being WP:CANVASSed I named two that were in fact mentioned in WCM's comment (you and James) As soon as I'm done writing this here I'll amend that mistake by removing those links from my comment. What I find curious is why would you not mention this to me directly? WCM left ANI notices for 9 editors. What would you say about those other 7 editors he called in? Is that not canvassing? Please do correct me if I'm wrong because perhaps I'm not understanding the policy. BTW I'm not the only editor who commented on this as canvassing. It saddens me to read that you came close to blocking me without even contacting me first and it saddens me even more to just know that if the tables were turned and I was the one behaving like WCM, I would be without a doubt blocked by now. As a minor example of things that WCM can apparently get away with that you and I both know would get me blocked on the spot: insulting an editor in a summary, gross incivility at ANI.
The only editor with whom I've had these issues since I started editing WP is WCM. He on the other hand has received topic bans from both Gibraltar and the Falklands (which gives a clear indication of where his POV stands) and has gotten into some nasty fights with many many editors. Yet I'm the one constantly being warned and threatened with blocks.
Could you honestly tell me that if I had done even a fraction of the things WCM did in this past two weeks (like violating his topic ban and again I'm not the only editor who mentioned this [18][19]) I'd still be editing right now? Is that not a double standard? Regards and sorry for the rant. Gaba(talk) 11:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Dpmuk. You have new messages at Gaba p's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
RE: Transportation in Montana
Hi. That was a good spot! You may have already noticed this by now, but you can notify the removal at Wikipedia:Did you know/Removed next time. Cheers. -- Trevj (talk) 12:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
DYK
Dpmuk, I thought you'd like to know that the best place to get the attention of people who frequent DYK is on the WT:DYK talk page.
I happened to notice that there were five hooks on the main Wikipedia page instead of six, which was what spurred me to investigate why, and I found the deletion and why it occurred. So we lucked out, in that I could clean up on the DYK side shortly after the removal. I hope it won't be necessary for you to remove a hook in future, but if it is, you now know the place to notify people of what you did, so they can do the necessary next steps. Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 15:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
The quote in itself is part of gcc code (as a comment) which is licensed under GPLv3. Now I understand GPLv3 is a software license that gives users the permission to do whatever they want to the code, provided they abide by the licence conditions. I do not believe any of these conditions were breached by the comment, as the comment was neither a large % of the gcc codebase. Did you run this past a someone with knowledge of GPLv3?
I don't see why this comment extracted by the code needs something transformative done to it, the GCC patchset comments are precise & informative in the description of architecture chnages.
Regards,
Wesmosis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.200.85.145 (talk) 13:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
