I agree with the points you made on S&P's talk page. However, it's also bad to report information that is most likely false, even if we have no verifiable sources saying it is. Perhaps we should just leave the IOA total blank for now, with a footnote explaining the situation? Smartyllama (talk) 01:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a good compromise. Do we just set the athlete number parameter to "unknown"? I'm not quite sure if that might break the template, but I'll let you handle that if you like. The footnote is already in place, so we should be fine in that department. Evanh2008(talk|contribs)01:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
London 2012's site has been updated; the three Kuwaitis formerly listed as independents have been moved to the Kuwaiti roster. Unfortunately, their total for that roster only comes to ten, rather than the number of eleven given by other sources. I don't think that this is a problem, however, as I'm no longer interested in citing London 2012 for information on which they have proven themselves to be unreliable. Evanh2008(talk|contribs)04:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what I did wrong and am hoping you can advise me. All I was trying to do was to agree with the mediators' decision about the Beatles "compromise." Did it seem like I was trying to do something else? I added my agreement under the "Your views" section on the mediation talk page. Wasn't that right? The note said I had refactored someone else's talk page. I'm not sure what that means, but, if I did a no-no, it was an accident. Thanks for any advice you can give me.Jburlinson (talk) 04:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you check the diff I posted at your talk page, you'll see that you accidentally removed two other editors' comments (and inserted one with Yeepsi's signature attached to it). If I misplaced your comment in repairing the damage, I apologize, and you can feel free to move it to wherever you think it belongs. Evanh2008(talk|contribs)04:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, stop templating people
The stuff on Alymustafina's page was totally uncool.
You are turning away potential contributors with your little kid mall cop antics.
You have a valid point. I use templates where I feel that they will be more helpful than direct engagement, but in this situation I definitely could have handled it better. I'm just trying to sort things out where edits look potentially problematic, and things certainly did look problematic in this case. Edit summaries are to prevent confusion over things like this, and when they aren't used, the edits come across as vandalism, regardless of what they are intended to be. But I overreacted. I apologize, and I thank you for calling me out on it. Evanh2008(talk|contribs)04:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Having established the above, would it be possible for you to clue me in as to the purpose of the edits in question? If I know that they have a decent rationale, I can guarantee that there won't be any confusion in the future. Evanh2008(talk|contribs)20:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you
I would just like to thank you for asking Aliyamustafina (talk) to stop deleting large chunks of information for no apparent reason. I'm glad that I'm not the only one who noticed this and thought that it was destructive to the gymnast's pages. Since you warned Aliyamustafina the IP address 182.93.41.50 has been deleting the same type of information from gymnast's pages and I believe that it is the same user. I'm not sure what to do about it other than undo the edits on the pages that I follow and I would appreciate any help you can offer.Malluu12 (talk) 17:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, regardless of what the motivation is, those edits are disruptive without an explanatory summary. I noticed the IP edits last night and had intended to take a closer look at them today; I think you're right, though, as the pattern matches. At any rate, I don't think it's a whole lot to worry about. If the user doesn't explain the blankings, they can just be reverted and warned; and if it continues, they can be blocked. I've undone the edits and given the IP a level-three warning. If they start in on it later, they can be given a level-four warning and then taken to AIV. I'll keep an eye on it. Thanks for the notification! Evanh2008(talk|contribs)21:00, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Evanh2008. You have new messages at Talk:Green Lantern (film)/GA1. Message added 03:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
No, I definitely wouldn't have done that on purpose. Maybe I 'selected all' and deleted the article in the editor by accident. My apologies. Stevo1000 (talk) 00:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Evanh2008, I noticed a space between a letter and a period. I'm a stickler for stuff like that. When I entered the edit page, I noticed some formatted text in the location where the space was - text that didn't appear on the main page, nor added anything to the article, so I deleted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.122.77 (talk) 01:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's hidden text. It is there to inform editors about certain peculiarities about the subject or the writing style where confusion is likely; that's why it doesn't show on the article, but only while editing. I had assumed your edits were in good faith, however, so no harm done. Evanh2008(talk|contribs)02:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I am part of an effort to get Wikimedians access to the 2016 Summer Olympics as accredited reporters and photographers. Part of this effort includes covering the 2012 Summer Paralympics. Two Wikimedians have credentials to attend these games as reporters through Wikimedia Australia. As English Wikipedia does not allow original reporting, this is largely through Wikinews with a project page found at Wikinews:Paralympic Games. If you are interested in helping to get Wikimedians to the next Summer Olympics,I'd encourage you to assist with Wikinews efforts, and also to work on all language 2012 Summer Paralympic Wikipedia articles before, during and after the Games to demonstrate a track record of success. Thank you. --LauraHale (talk) 04:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Evanh2008. You have new messages at Talk:Aryeh Tzvi Frommer. Message added 13:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
The trade mark argument as a legal threat
It occured to me that perhaps the trade mark argument for "The Beatles" is tantamount to a legal threat. Afterall, when editor "S" says, "Remember, 'The Beatles' is a registered trade mark of Apple Corps LTd." aren't they really saying, "if we don't cap all the definite articles Apple might sue wikipedia". Any thoughts. Also, I've asked our wikimedia general counsel, Geoff Brigham, to weigh-in on this issue, should be interesting. ~ GabeMc(talk|contribs)22:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think that's a completely valid way of looking at it. I don't see that the trademark argument has ever had any weight, but if the intent is to change the way Wikipedia does things by employing nebulous threats of litigation, I'd say that definitely falls under WP:NLT. Evanh2008(talk|contribs)22:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
GabeMc, would you please provide a diff to that comment? The context is important, because if there's no more than this comment, I'd be hesitant to raise this up to the NLT level. That could be a violation of AGF. We should be cautious about doing such a thing and possibly blowing this up to more than just a comment. Maybe the comment is ill-informed, or maybe it's actually true, in which case it's informative and protective, not a negative thing. It is in the interest of Wikipedia and its editors to know if they are in danger of trade mark infringement. I suspect there is no danger, since fair use should cover mention. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you, but since I didn't mention an editor do I really need diffs, which would actually implicate a specific user? As far as context, that is pretty much it, and they have made the comment numerous times. I can sure dig up the diffs if you want me to, though I'm not sure what that would lead to. ~ GabeMc(talk|contribs)22:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting information, but I don't see any type of legal threat here. If there are other diffs that sound more ominous and threatening, I'd like to see them. Even if the trade mark statement is true, I don't think we'd be endangered by using the terms in text here. Only if we use it for commercial purposes would there be a problem. I'm not a lawyer, so I could be wrong, and I'd certainly like to be corrected if I'm wrong. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Friendly notice
Hi Evan,
Firstly, I noticed you've added input at Talk:Jerusalem, as a Wiki-acquaintance I would like to make you aware that there is currently an WP:AE report against Farouk regarding his conduct towards other users. I have faced such acts by the user in the past and still to this day don't know why s/he cast racial attacks towards me when I had never even been in contact with him/her. So I thought I best let you know just in case the user comes along to your (or any other) talk page and starts posting racial threats to you too.
Secondly I'd like to thank you for the barnstar award, that was ever so kind of you, and I appreciated it so much. ProjectOlympics should design an Olympic Barnstar too. The experience volunteering at the games has been out of this world, the Olympics alone were such a buzz with everything going on. The Olympic Park is now going through the transformation ready for the Paralympics in 10 days time. I'm helping out with some of that preparations and doing shorter periods of volunteering days, until August 29 when volunteering gets into full swing again right the way through until the closing on September 9. I can truly say that if you get the opportunity to volunteer at such an event like the Olympics, Paralympics, or Commonwealth Games - that you should seize the chance, you'd really enjoy the experience it brings. Regards, WesleyMouse08:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. However, I could have just as easily tagged it under G4, since the same article was PROD'd back in 2008, and CSD'd the year before that. It also was written in a highly unencyclopedic fashion and (if my memory hasn't failed me) lacked sources, so I didn't see that it would have been of much use anywhere. Evanh2008(talk|contribs)06:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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
Learned69 (talk) 02:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)Can you explain why you considered the statement that part of the reason that Documentary Hypothesis is rejected by many is because it is contradicted by the Hebrew torah (in hebrew) the Mishneh and Talmud. You edited it to say that they believe that since its not based on evidence therefore it is false. Something not based on evidence is not proven, it is not a reason to hold that it is factually false.[reply]
You also insist that its only orthodox rabbis that reject it. 1. it is rejected by many people who are not rabbis and not orthodox at all. Polls show that the great majority of secular Israelis reject this theory. So do all Sephardic Jews. at a bare minimum do not call my revision vandalism.
I have no idea who you are so i don't know what your motive is, but it does appear that you want to make it appear that this theory is accepted by all, save orthodox rabbis, who reject it only for the illogical reason that if something is not proven then it must be false.
Since we are on the subject there is something else that i don't understand, and that is according to the Documentary Hypothesis the Torah is the ideology of a few individuals. Why is study of this work any different than, say, studying Aristotle. The idea of Torah study is that its a completely different caliber of book. You write that part of this study is to understand the society that these people live in. What is so important about those people and their writing, which may well be fiction. In addition the bulk of the Torah are commandments, ideas on how man should relate to God etc. What can archaeology teach about how to understand these teachings. Archaeology would only be of any help for the couple of stories that the Torah tells of, the majority of which there is nothing in archaeology that tells us anything.
You've made a lot of points, so let me address each of them in turn:
1. "You edited it to say..." Nope. I reverted your edits because they contravened our netural point of view policies. I've not actually authored any of the material currently in the article.
2. "You also insist..." No, I don't. See above.
3. "do not call my revision vandalism... I didn't. In fact, I make a point of not doing such things. Please don't accuse me of things I didn't do.
4. "you want to make it appear that this theory is accepted by all..." No, I don't. But your edits were not sourced and were in violation of Wikipedia's policies.
5. I essentially agree with the last few points you made. I don't even hold to the Documentary Hypothesis myself, so please understand that I have no intellectual axe to grind here. Despite that, our articles have to be held to a high standard of sourcing and neutrality. If you have further concerns, I would recommend you take it to the article's talk page for wider input. Evanh2008(talk|contribs)03:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The statement "because it is contradicted by the Hebrew torah (in hebrew) the Mishneh and Talmud" is not means as pov but that is why they reject it.
As to a source for anyone other than orthodox rabbis rejecting it. I don't see a source that says that orthodox rabbis reject it, so its not an issue of sources but commonly known fact. This is a theory held, as the article itslef says by those Jews in Europe who accepted this theory, the Reform and Consrvative movements. Sphardic Jews or israeli secular jews have nothing to do with those movements and it is well known that they don't care for the theory, if they heard of it at all. In fact zionists who are anti-orthodox, claim their right to the land of Israel because of the torah. I don't think that they mean, because the Elohist wrote it. So i think that we can expand what is commonly known beyond Rabbis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Learned69 (talk • contribs) 03:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I believe we had a minor misunderstanding there. I'm fine with you adding additional material to the article, and I'll go over it again to make sure everything's alright with it. We do of course prefer that you cite reliable sources for the material you add, but I think making certain that the article is both accurate and consistent with itself is also a good goal to have. Evanh2008(talk|contribs)04:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Beatles Troll
Hello, Evanh2008! Before tagging anymore IP user pages, keep this in mind. Since IP's are recycled, we don't want to tag their user pages, but their talk pages instead. Just a heads up, and Cheers :> Doctalk07:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the note. I had thought that was proper procedure, but then I saw an administrator or two creating and tagging user pages. I suspected something was wrong there, so thanks! Evanh2008(talk|contribs)07:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a reply to an e-mail I was sent, for any interested party.
When I said I knew who the post was from, I meant I knew it was from 99. Now, for both of you, please read this very carefully. Forget BullRangifer for that, because he's already got it as a link on his own project page. You people have too much time on your hands.--andreasegde (talk) 03:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I never accused you of being part of a conspiracy, so please don't insinuate that I did. You're fully aware based on the first e-mail I sent you that I have no antipathy towards you, so the only one acting in an uncivil fashion is you. If you want to make further accusations against me, I suggest you take it to AN/I or (more appropriately, from what I see on your talk page) SPI. Evanh2008(talk|contribs)03:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Calm down; I have an idea. If you want to know who I think it is (and there are more than one), I'll send you an e-mail. It's logical when you look at it from outside the circle.--andreasegde (talk) 04:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@BR - I'm pretty sure you know what this is in relation with, unless I've been talking to a different BullRangifer via email. This is related to the guy who may or may not be KBlott; you had one of his posts oversighted recently. Evanh2008(talk|contribs)04:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was not my POV at all; I was only repeating what Evanh2008 told me in a private Wikipedia e-mail. He mentioned you specifically. He said that you and he suspected that I knew who '99' (the sock/troll), really was. Am I wrong about this, Evanh2008?--andreasegde (talk) 20:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After that last little outburst, I think you could do with one of these to calm your nerves back down. Chin up and keep smiling Evanh! Wesley♦Mouse02:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for cleaning up, Mr. Stradivarius! I wouldn't mind an indefinite semi-protection, of course, but as I know that's almost unheard of, three months should do it. Thanks again! Evanh2008(talk|contribs)02:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let's keep it at 3 months for now - from two weeks to indef is a bit too big of a jump. If it happens again after the protection expires then indefinite semi-protection is probably the next step, though. — Mr. Stradivarius(have a chat)02:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh its still at it even on Strad's page now. Any chance of semi-protecting my talk page just in case it starts posting random crap over there too? Wesley♦Mouse02:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the barnstar Evan! I really didn't help much though, its an excellent article that you should be very proud of getting through FAC so smoothly. Well done! ~ GabeMc(talk|contribs)22:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixing a Hole
Remember Mr. Beatles? I had contacted RackCo at the time. They finally got back to me, basically saying, “there's nothing we can do, because those addresses all belong to our client”. And the client is… *drumroll*… Privacy Partners, the same anonymous proxy service for which we already blocked a bunch of net blocks. —Kerfufflerhowl prowl23:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting. I guess that, as several people have already observed, this is essentially a game of whack-a-troll until he gets tired of it and acquires a social life or something. It would be nice not to have to deal with it, of course, but I think it comes with the territory. Evanh2008(talk|contribs)02:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #2)
To add your named to the newsletter delivery list, please sign up here
This edition The Olive Branch is focusing on a 2nd dispute resolution RfC. Two significant proposals have been made. Below we describe the background and recent progress and detail those proposals. Please review them and follow the link at the bottom to comment at the RfC. We need your input!
View the full newsletter
Background
Until late 2003, Jimmy Wales was the arbiter in all major disputes. After the Mediation Committee and the Arbitration Committee were founded, Wales delegated his roles of dispute resolution to these bodies. In addition to these committees, the community has developed a number of informal processes of dispute resolution. At its peak, over 17 dispute resolution venues existed. Disputes were submitted in each venue in a different way.
Due to the complexity of Wikipedia dispute resolution, members of the community were surveyed in April 2012 about their experiences with dispute resolution. In general, the community believes that dispute resolution is too hard to use and is divided among too many venues. Many respondents also reported their experience with dispute resolution had suffered due to a shortage of volunteers and backlogging, which may be due to the disparate nature of the process.
An evaluation of dispute resolution forums was made in May this year, in which data on response and resolution time, as well as success rates, was collated. This data is here.
Progress so far
Stage one of the dispute resolution noticeboard request form. Here, participants fill out a request through a form, instead of through wikitext, making it easier for them to use, but also imposing word restrictions so volunteers can review the dispute in a timely manner.
Leading off from the survey in April and the evaluation in May, several changes to dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) were proposed. Rather than using a wikitext template to bring disputes to DRN, editors used a new javascript form. This form was simpler to use, but also standardised the format of submissions and applied a word limit so that DRN volunteers could more easily review disputes. A template to summarise, and a robot to maintain the noticeboard, were also created.
As a result of these changes, volunteers responded to disputes in a third of the time, and resolved them 60% faster when compared to May. Successful resolution of disputes increased by 17%. Submissions were 25% shorter by word count.(see Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Statistics - August compared to May)
Outside of DRN other simplification has taken place. The Mediation Cabal was closed in August, and Wikiquette assistance was closed in September. Nevertheless, around fifteen different forums still exist for the resolution of Wikipedia disputes.
Proposed changes
Given the success of the past efforts at DR reform, the current RFC proposes we implement:
1) A submission gadget for every DR venue tailored to the unique needs of that forum.
Similar to the one that was deployed, with great success, to the DRN.
Structured based on the specific issues most commonly dealt with at each forum.
Designed to improve the quality of requests for DR and the efficiency of DR at that forum.
Forms will merely fill out any existing templates (such as Arbcom's) and create a markup-free form in line with specific noticeboard practices otherwise.
Example form fields: What pages are involved? What users are involved? What is the issue? What resolution is desired?
This wizard would ask a series of structured questions about the nature of the dispute.
It would then determine to which dispute resolution venue a dispute should be sent.
If the user agrees with the wizard's selection, s/he would then be asked a series of questions about the details of the dispute (for example, the usernames of the involved editors).
The wizard would then submit a request for dispute resolution to the selected venue, in that venue's required format (using the logic of each venue's specialized form, as in proposal #1). The wizard would not suggest a venue which the user has already identified in answer to a question like "What other steps of dispute resolution have you tried?".
Similar to the way the DRN request form operates, this would be enabled for all users. A user could still file a request for dispute resolution manually if they so desired.
Coding such a wizard would be complex, but the DRN gadget would be used as an outline.
Once the universal request form is ready (coded by those who helped create the DRN request form) the community will be asked to try out and give feedback on the wizard. The wizard's logic in deciding the scope and requirements of each venue would be open to change by the community at any time.
3) Additionally, we're seeking any ideas on how we can attract and retain more dispute resolution volunteers.
Whatever is going on with you, you need to stop. Ethnic Jews can be Christians. In fact, "The Birkat haMinim is a malediction on heretics. The belief that the curse was directed at Christians was sometimes cause for persecution of Jews. Modern scholarship has generally evaluated that the Birkat haMinim probably did originally include Jewish Christians before Christianity became markedly a gentile religion.[3]"-Heresy in Judaism -- Nickidewbear
I'm well aware of the current state of scholarship on the origins of the Birkat haMinim. I'm also aware that Thomas Selfridge was the first person to die as a result of an airplane crash, but unfortunately neither of those facts has any bearing on the issue at hand -- namely, your attempt to forge a statement in the name of the ADL. I strongly advise you to revert it willingly before an admin comes along and blocks you. Evanh2008(talk|contribs)06:26, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
