User talk:FormerIP/Archive4

Heads up

You may wish to take a look at these edits. The anonymous IP is almost certainly the same one whom you reverted here a few weeks ago. Prioryman (talk) 01:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. It looks like someone else has already reverted. --FormerIP (talk) 01:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The List of oldest universities in continuous operation NPOV issue (again)

Hello,

I would like to inform you that the NPOV discussion about the List of oldest universities in continuous operation, to which you participated, was reopened on the NPOVN.

The current discussion is ongoing on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#The List of oldest universities in continuous operation (again).

Regards,
--Omar-Toons (talk) 09:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

The Original Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images closed

An arbitration case regarding Muhammad images has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

  1. The community is asked to hold a discussion that will establish a definitive consensus on what images will be included in the article Muhammad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and on where the images will be placed within the article. As with all decisions about content, the policies on verifiability and the neutral point of view must be the most important considerations. The editors who choose to participate in this discussion are asked to form an opinion with an open mind, and to explain their decision clearly. Any editor who disrupts this discussion may be banned from the affected pages by any uninvolved administrator, under the discretionary sanctions authorised in this decision. The decision reached in this discussion will be appended to this case within two months from the close of the case.
  2. Ludwigs2 is prohibited from contributing to any discussion concerning Muhammad.
  3. Ludwigs2 is banned from the English Wikipedia for one year.
  4. Tarc is admonished to behave with appropriate professionalism in his contributions to discussions about disputed article content.
  5. FormerIP is admonished to behave with appropriate professionalism in his contributions to discussions about disputed article content.
  6. Hans Adler is reminded to engage in discussions about disputed article content with an appropriate degree of civility.
  7. Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to Muhammad, broadly interpreted.
  8. The participants in the dispute about depictions of Muhammad are reminded that editors who engage extensively in an intractable dispute can become frustrated, and that it is important to be aware that as editors we are limited in our ability to contribute constructively to a deadlocked disagreement. Our exasperation with a dispute can make us unprofessional or unreceptive to compromise. We therefore encourage the disputants of this case to consider if their participation in the coming community discussion of depictions of Muhammad would be useful, and we remind them that if they disrupt the community discussion they may be banned from the discussion or otherwise sanctioned under the discretionary sanctions provision of this case.

Mlpearc (powwow) 16:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the Arbitration Committee

File permission problem with File:Frog and saucepan.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Frog and saucepan.jpg, which you've sourced to James Lee. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation about the Muhammad images RFC

Just to let you know I've opened a request with the Mediation cabal about the Muhammad images RFC. Please see the mediation request if you want to comment. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Bacon (artist)

I have posted a number of times on the talk page of this article, and the consensus is for the current status quo. The article went through a period of slo-mo edit-warring (which I think you were party to) but has now settled down., so why have you reverted my edit? Has some new information come to light? JonCTalk 21:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

JonCTalk 22:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to split Jeremy Bamber

Exok objects to the closure of the discussion about whether to split Jeremy Bamber into two articles — one about the murders and one a biography. He has requested that I make a formal proposal to split the articles on the talk page. I'm very sorry to ask this, but it would be appreciated if everyone who commented at the BLPN here could offer their opinion again at Talk:Jeremy_Bamber#Proposal_to_split_this_article_into_a_murders_article_and_a_biography. (Also, for some reason, that link isn't going directly to the subsection, so please scroll up a little to find it.) Many thanks, SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 21:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't attack other's religious beliefs

On Talk:Genesis creation narrative you insulted other's religion by calling part of it a "fairy tale". See WP:NPA. Here is part of it(emphasis mine):

  • "There is no rule that is objective and not open to interpretation on what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion, but some types of comments are never acceptable: Racial, sexist, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, sexual, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse." Zenkai talk 03:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall using an epithet of any kind directed against anyone. If you can point it out to me, I'll gladly strike it. --FormerIP (talk) 03:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You called Genesis a "fairy tale". Zenkai talk 03:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is. That's not a personal attack, unless you are concerned about the feelings of User:Genesis. --FormerIP (talk) 03:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously directed that comment at all Christians, therefore it is a personal attack. Don't do it again. Zenkai talk 04:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, please go away. --FormerIP (talk) 04:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Edit-warring

Please do not immediately revert good faith edits. As a reminder, this area is under discretionary sanctions, and editors could well be banned from the RfC. I am more than happy to discuss changes, but making immediate reverts is likely to escalate tensions, not de-escalate. --Elonka 22:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As another example, this comment was not helpful.[1] --Elonka 07:09, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OfffertToHideImage.js

pasteing what I've said elsewhere.

Would there be any possibility of getting working demos of these? FormerIP (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can test it right now, FormerIP. Go to User:FormerIP/common.js and create a page with the contents "importScript('User:HectorMoffet/OfferToHideImages.js');", then save the page. Go to Muhammad and you'll see it. Let me know if there's trouble.
Obviously, it's only this much work because it's a demo-- if we got consensus to use this on the page, you wouldn't have to alter your own user files in weird ways. --HectorMoffet (talk) 05:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do try it out. --HectorMoffet (talk) 05:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not working. --FormerIP (talk) 20:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh. Such is the nature of software.
So, I've asked someone who knows more about this than me to take a look. But in the mean time, I took screen grabs so you can see what it looks like from my account. --HectorMoffet (talk) 05:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, if you didn't already, clear your cache. --HectorMoffet (talk) 09:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

Please please please keep comments within your own section. Crosstalk would be unbelievably messy. It's usual RfC procedure, particularly for one of this size. No worries about it, but just a friendly reminder. Xavexgoem (talk) 01:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is normal procedure. Just a friendly reminder that you were asked to moderate the formulation of the RfC, not manage it. However, if you are planning to try to do that, I hope you will not be deleting cross-talk selectively. FormerIP (talk) 01:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is. Most discussion happens in other areas, like the ===additional discussion=== areas in all sections. And of course I wouldn't selectively delete cross-talk; why would you think that? Xavexgoem (talk) 01:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm glad to hear that. FormerIP (talk) 01:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for visiting the Teahouse!

Hi! FormerIP, thanks for visiting the Teahouse! As an experienced editor, your knowledge is very valuable to new editors. Teahouse Hosts help new editors at the Teahouse and beyond. If you'd like to get involved in assisting new editors at the Teahouse, please learn more here Sarah (talk) 18:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts on User talk:Jimbo Wales

These: [2][3] are not vandalism. You shouldn't be removing comments from other people's talk pages just because they offend you, as stated in your first edit summary. Equazcion (talk) 13:04, 28 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Voting and commenting on WP:RFC/AAT

Hi FormerIP,

Was this comment a reply to my comment or a general point about the idea of using Borda count? Can you adjust the indent as appropriate? As the page stands, someone might not realise that there were two comments there (one from me, one from you).

Yaris678 (talk) 21:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK I have indented it. For future reference, please feel free to just dent any of my comments if I have not typed enough colons. Cheers. FormerIP (talk) 21:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you

The Modest Barnstar
In recognition of all the work you’ve done lately! 66.87.2.142 (talk) 15:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. FormerIP (talk) 12:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Cabal: Case update

Dear FormerIP/Archive4: Hello, this is to let you know that a Mediation Cabal case that you are involved in, or have some connection with:

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/11 February 2012/Muhammad-images

is currently inactive as it has not been edited in at least a week. If the issues in the case have been resolved, please let us know on our talk page so we can close the case. If there are still issues that need to be addressed, let us know. If your mediator has become inactive, also let us know. The case will be closed in one month if it remains inactive. You can let us know what's going on by sending a message through to your mediator, Xavexgoem, on their talk page. Thanks! MedcabBot (talk) 18:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
"We don't have to prove it, we just have to be it". I hereby award you this barnstar. St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 14:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. FormerIP (talk) 16:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

Hey FormerIP,

Thanks for volunteering to provide a third opinion. The discussion is very long indeed. Some of your comments were on things we agreed on, for example:

  1. "Bromley86's Wikilink suggestion looks good to me".
  2. "Better syntax might be "Decades of lingering"
  3. "Think this should go. The wikilink is above if readers want background."

These points are already agreed on and thus you'd see them in both of our paragraphs at the top. In general anywhere you don't see me commenting after Bromley86 means we agreed on this point (seems I have much more time than he/she does), but you could look at the paragraphs at top to compare as well.

Also, some points weren't discussed by both us, as you can see Bromley86's comments end after the first paragraph (i.e no comments on second, third, forth and fifth), but you could know his opinion from looking at the paragraph at top (maybe trying to solve this by comparing the paragraphs at top is best?). Mohamed CJ (talk) 06:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I have a small note regarding BICI report; it's independence is disputed by parts of the opposition and human rights activists [4], [5], [6]. Mohamed CJ (talk) 07:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello FormerIP. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Bight The Ips

You understand where I'm coming from right?74.163.16.52 (talk) 16:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of, but I don't think it's anything comparable to racism. FormerIP (talk) 18:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As opposed to "sockism", as the IP was ID'd as a banned user (see User:Salvidrim/Tailsman67) and is now under "blockism". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

LOL! You have no idea how much I needed a laugh just now. Rivertorch (talk) 20:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Malawi President

Howdy FIP. I don't mind the current Malawi President not being numbered, however her 3 predecessors should be. The opposing editor seems to be reverting out of spite for me. GoodDay (talk) 22:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I see that it's no longer a grudge by Mewulwe. He's just basically being a dick with ownership issues. Apparently, nothing will be added to the Joyce Banda article, unless it gets Mewulwe's stamp of approval. GoodDay (talk) 14:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bingu wa Mutharia

Kindly stop these edits ([7][8][9][]) and DISCUSS on the talk page (As ive initiated). Get consensus isntead of waringLihaas (talk) 19:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lihaas, have you gone crazy? One is an unsourced paragraph in a BLP currently linked to the front page. One is an obviously undue paragraph linking the death of a head of state to the prophesies of a televangelist. The third is unsourced and obviously unclear. Please don't restore any of it. FormerIP (talk) 19:42, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UBF page question

FormerIP: Why is the reference a "self-pub source"? Can you explain why you removed it? Thanks. Bkarcher (talk) 01:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It falls within the guideline WP:SELFPUB. The source is a website run by an individual. Citing the source itself does not provide evidence that the organisation CARM is a noteworthy organisation to the extent that its opinion of University Bible Fellowship is something that Wikipedia needs to mention. If CARM's criticisms can be found in a reliable source other than the CARM website, then that might change things. Formerip (talk) 01:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I understand now, especially after reading this about CARM. Bkarcher (talk) 04:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Claims

Thanks! I`ve put a little there. Perhaps could you now excuse my english. :) --Antur (talk) 16:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and thanks for letting Bernard know. To be honest, I don't think there is much to discuss. Jimmy Wales' talkpage is not really an international court for what goes on in non-English Wikipedias. Probably the user should be advised to appeal within Spanish Wikipedia. Formerip (talk) 17:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, too! We have tried to help the user but it has been impossible. He dont understand that information in Wikipedia need verifiables sources. The article seem to be an original (and very elogious) research about a radio broadcaster. Regards, Bernard (talk) 17:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiThanks

WikiThanks
WikiThanks

Thanks for your recent contributions! 66.87.2.2 (talk) 00:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your HighBeam account is ready!

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

  • Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
    • Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
    • If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
  • The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
  • To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
  • If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
  • A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
  • HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
  • Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
  • When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 20:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Matisse (singer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Renegade (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Citation Barnstar
Nice informative "attempt to introduce a Muslim perspective" in the RfC about Muhammad's images. I truly appreciate your valuable contribution. Keep up the good work. Cheers! Brendon is here 07:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Formerip (talk) 14:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ITNR for elections

As someone who regularly contributes to election articles: Due to recurrent discussions that lead nowhere, an open-ended discussion and proposals are invited Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items/Elections for ITN on the main page as to what should be recurrent without ITNC discussionsLihaas (talk) 07:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad images RfC

I noticed your restoration of the late !vote and thought I should point you to this discussion. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution

I originally espoused your position that the lead should not include specific statements from politicians, which do not accurately sum up the motive, and are unduly specific, if their sole purpose is to convey an individual's thoughts. These two editors disagreed with this view so I sought to expand upon Sarkozy's comment, but also encountered resistance. I note that your preference is for a complete removal. Can you clarify whether this is an all-or-nothing position, as I wish to establish an editorial consensus as to best route forward, and your response introduces a unique perspective.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 02:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please fill out our brief Teahouse survey

Teahouse logo
Teahouse logo

Hello fellow Wikipedian, the hardworking hosts and staff at WP:Teahouse would like your feedback!

We have created a brief survey intended to help us understand the experiences and impressions of veteran editors who have participated on the Teahouse. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you edited the Teahouse Questions or Guests pages some time during the last few months.

Click here to be taken to the survey site.

The survey should take less than 15 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback, and we look forward to your next vist to the Teahouse!

Happy editing,

J-Mo, Teahouse host

This message was sent via Global message delivery on 01:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Boom boom!

LOL! Pdfpdf (talk) 00:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! --Floquenstein's monster (talk) 03:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting Files

Please do not delete test edits. I was going to archive it with the closing statement: "test editCurb Chain (talk) 20:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)".Curb Chain (talk) 20:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CC, if you expect anything different to happen, you really need to mark "test edit, please do not delete". Formerip (talk) 20:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Resolution IRC office hours.

Hello there. As you expressed interest in hearing updates to my research in the dispute resolution survey that was done a few months ago, I just wanted to let you know that I am hosting an IRC office hours session this coming Saturday, 28th July at 19:00 UTC (approximately 12 hours from now). This will be located in the #wikimedia-office connect IRC channel - if you have not participated in an IRC discussion before you can connect to IRC here.

Regards, User:Szhang (WMF) (talk) 07:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HI there. If you click the link above provided, you should be able to join. Cheers. Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 19:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRIME

I noticed that we worked together on WP:CRIME early last year when you expressed some concern about the "unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy" clause in what has become PERP #2. It appears as though there may have been some consensus to striking the phrases to "unusual" and "well-documented", but nothing materialized with it. I think this is still problematic and am wondering if you have interest in addressing it again. Thanks! Location (talk) 03:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: I have reintroduced discussion of this in Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). Cheers! Location (talk) 00:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. Will take a look. Formerip (talk) 00:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest universities

Hello,

This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#List of oldest universities regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

Thank you.

--Omar-toons (talk) 18:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Filtering

Regarding this dilemma, I have, I think, a unique answer here. I don't think I've explained it all that clearly, but if you can be bothered reading the whole thread, I think the principle becomes clear. You and I are at different poles on some aspects of filtering, so I would highly value your critique, if you care to offer it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overly anal

That's fine. I guess I was just being anal. Lighthead...KILLS!! 17:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about. Did I leave a comment somewhere some time ago? Formerip (talk) 18:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You modified my edit on the Morrissey page. I just did that a couple hours ago. I was just stating that I was being a perfectionist. I put that reference in both places because I wanted to cover both bases since being a vegetarian and being involved in animal rights are not exclusively dependent on each other. It doesn't matter, though. The way you modified it, at the very least, I've seen done normally. Whether it's a guideline, I'm not sure. I'm not an avid reader of the Wikipedia guidelines. Lighthead...KILLS!! 18:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

Thank you for taking the time to read through the discussion. I will add a draft to the talk page shortly. 85.167.111.129 (talk) 11:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

clarification

Hi - need to clear this up -

Comment. Just for the avoidance of uncertainty, I indent "talkspace" in the diff cited by YRC to mean generally "the spaces where we talk", rather than specifically pages that begin "talk:". Formerip (talk) 17:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

what do you mean exactly - would your comment restrict me from commenting on the Talk:Julian Assange - about detail connected to the living person Julian Assange? Youreallycan 17:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, but part (2) of how I described the restriction would apply on Talk:Julian Assange. If somebody had asked for a source giving the exact shade of his hair colour and you found it, that would be fine. But you wouldn't be allowed to say "we must not mention his hair colour as I believe this to be contrary to WP:BLP". As Anthony suggested, though, you should be careful about not crossing the line accidentally.
The reason for my clarification was just to make it clear that, for example, User talk:FormerIP counts as "talkspace", even though some editors might think of it as "userspace". Formerip (talk) 17:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok - thanks - then your clarification doesn't affect/change my offer - that is ok with me - regards - and thanks - Youreallycan 18:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pussy Riot

hello, I'm trying to work on and improve the Pussy Riot article, so that it's balanced and doesn't read like a propaganda/press release from Pussy Riot's supporters. Article needs much more balance and needs more NPOV including comments from the Russian Church officials and Russian people, etc. that are not in support of Pussy Riot's conduct. Now news outlets have stopped calling it a "performance" and are referring to it as an "anti-Putin rant". See what I mean? The article as it stands needs work to make it NPOV, that's what I'm trying to do. Thanks!MickeyDonald (talk) 20:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have now blocked Solomeo8812 for 24 hours but next time please try to warn people of the 3RR rule before reporting them for edit warring. Blocking them is not a punitive action after they have broken the rules but it's rather a preventive measure. Cheers, De728631 (talk) 13:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David R. Hawkins

David R. Hawkins-I believe you may have called an individual out for inappropriate actions on this article in the deletion process. Article abuse and malice by this one user; inappropriate deletion of the articles material and information based on one user's bias and previous attempts to have the article deleted. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 22:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There were no inappropriate actions, sorry. I called a user out for nominating the article for speedy deletion then removing a large amount of sourced content, which would have made the article look like a better candidate for deletion. However, the speedy nomination had already been rejected before the content was deleted, so there was no issue. My mistake entirely. Formerip (talk) 02:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re. VP discussion on WQA

I'm sure you're probably wondering about this. You see, I also spend portions of my time answering questions on Yahoo! Answers, and sometimes I copy/paste the titles of questions I have every intention of posting on, but am simply too busy to do so at the time. I had posted that there thinking I was cutting/pasting my previous comment. Sorry for the confusion that must have caused — but damn, was that ever an awkward misstep. Kurtis (talk) 02:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. I had guessed it would be something like that. Formerip (talk) 10:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I have a habit of saving the names of questions I intend to answer later on a Word document. Lol, I should think the Village Pump is perhaps not the best place for an angsty teen to have a meltdown. xD
Anyways, take care. =) Kurtis (talk) 13:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Credo Reference

I'm sorry to report that there were not enough accounts available for you to have one. I have you on our list though and if more become available we will notify you promptly.

We're continually working to bring resources like Credo to Wikipedia editors, and this will very hopefully not be your last opportunity to sign up for one. If you haven't already, please check out WP:HighBeam and WP:Questia, where accounts are still available. Cheers, Ocaasi 19:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Kim Jong Un.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Kim Jong Un.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. [10], and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:

  • state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
  • add the relevant copyright tag.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. MASEM (t) 01:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your third opinion at Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States

Hi FormerIP. :) I left a reply for you on the talk page. Thanks! --76.189.108.102 (talk) 02:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

deaths

You recently participated in an informal discussion here on reforming the recent deaths section of ITN. The old discussion has been closed, and a more formal proposal has been made as an RfC. Please feel free to add your vote and comment to the new section, and, if you support, please indicate whether you prefer bare links or one-word blurbs. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 04:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yassassination

... is unlikely to ever be toppled as my all-time favorite nomination title. Cheers, Khazar2 (talk) 03:32, 29 August 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
  • Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!

  1. Go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
  2. Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
  3. Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
  4. You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (The account is now active for 1 year).

If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).

  • A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
  • Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
  • Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage
  • When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 05:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joyce Banda

Seeking advice. Should I take the 'numbering' dispute to DRN? GoodDay (talk) 18:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Followup RFC to WP:RFC/AAT now in community feedback phase

Hello. As a participant in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles, you may wish to register an opinion on its followup RFC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, which is now in its community feedback phase. Please note that WP:RFC/AAMC is not simply a repeat of WP:RFC/AAT, and is attempting to achieve better results by asking a more narrowly-focused, policy-based question of the community. Assumptions based on the previous RFC should be discarded before participation, particularly the assumption that Wikipedia has or inherently needs to have articles covering generalized perspective on each side of abortion advocacy, and that what we are trying to do is come up with labels for that. Thanks! —chaos5023 20:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Karen Kavanagh

Hello, just letting you know I removed the prod from the above article as it was previously proposed for deletion. Thank you. Rotten regard Softnow 00:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Search engine test#Google News and press agencies

Answered your comment of one year ago. It might be useful to add one or two specific examples of this to the tutorial. Please don't hesitate to suggest any potential examples of certain words/phrases/sources for restricting-searches-to and/or eliminating from search results that would be useful additions to the tutorial. LittleBen (talk) 05:52, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Jerusalem". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 25 November 2012.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 15:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SG New Message!

Hi, I have replied here: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Subhasree_Ganguly --Tito Dutta (talk) 19:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

COMMONS:PEOPLE

Thanks for chipping in over there. Could you please have a look at [11] and [12] and leave a comment as to whether that does or doesn't hit the mark? I think it works, because the context is established by what is there already, but YMMV. Regards, Andreas JN466 19:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re. your comment here

Hi FormerIP, in your comment regarding my answers to Cunard, you say that I express my opinions about certain things instead of indicating how I would act as an admin; now, this will probably make me look even dumber, but I'm not sure what questions you are referring to. From my interpretation of Cunard's questions, in most cases, I was asked for my opinion about various issues (with the exception of how I would have closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jill Kelley, to which my answer was that I would not have closed the discussion, but rather voted "delete")... Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you actually said "I would not have closed the discussion". Scuse me if I have misread, but I guess you've clarified now anyway. I think there are a couple of other similar examples, though maybe not in the same section. Don't dwell on it too much - I'm not even sure if I will get round to voting or not. Formerip (talk) 20:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, you did not misread, I did not explicitly write that. Eh, in my head, I thought I was being clear... Only there, probably... That said, since I had misinterpreted part of Gabe's question, I was curious to know if I had also been dumb elsewhere. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Dylan?

You have me totally stumped with your allusion to Bob Dylan in response to my Ruthenian/French complaint to Kiril on the fall of the Ukrainian government at ITN. (I have never been a fan of his for some reason.) Could you explain briefly? Thanks. :) μηδείς (talk) 21:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How many times can a man use the word... It sounds like a line from a lost verse to a song of his. Formerip (talk) 21:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I suppose the "how many times" should have been obvious. μηδείς (talk) 23:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Jerusalem, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, User:TransporterMan (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Rosie

Please consider my request here. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 22:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry!

I reverted your edit on Rosie Huntington-Whitely as vandalism by accident. I meant to good-faith revert it and explain that the Vogue bio you referenced is actually a loose paragraph of an older version of the article. Sorry again!  Mbinebri  talk ← 23:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem but, as I've just noted on the article talk page, there may still be a CIRCULAR issue. Formerip (talk) 23:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to address the circular issue and the copyright issue. Please see what you think. I understand that, even if those two are mooted, the overall delete/retain discussion is still open.
I've pled for additional input from our colleagues on the BLP Noticeboard. Thanks for collaborating collegially. It's becoming increasingly uncommon hereabouts. David in DC (talk) 13:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fast Followers

The term, "Fast Follower" is a highly technical term. I believe only the prime minister of New Zealand has the academic and political acumen to understand the full meaning and nuances of the term. :-)

Thank you for scrubbing the doha climate conference page. It reads much better after your pass. --Justanonymous (talk) 20:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, FormerIP. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 03:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Jerusalem 2". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 5 January 2013.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 22:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]